Supreme Court ditches fairness, voter rights and the Constitution in gerrymandering ruling

Supreme Court ditches fairness, voter rights and the Constitution in gerrymandering ruling Karen Hobert Flynn, Opinion contributor Published 11:43 a.m. ET June 27, 2019 The ruling means politicians are free to maximize party power and skew elections with few constraints. But citizens will keep fighting in the states. When voters go to the polls, they deserve to have their votes count equally. But for decades, politicians have rigged districts to boost the votes of their friends and dilute the votes of their enemies. Now a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices has given its blessing to blatant partisan gerrymandering where politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. Let’s be clear, the fight to end partisan gerrymandering does not end with the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Thursday. It will continue in state courts, at the polls, in legislatures and in the streets as citizens fight to make their voices heard and to end partisan gerrymandering that robs them of representation. The court greenlighted two blatant partisan gerrymanders — one by Republicans in North Carolina (Rucho v. Common Cause) and one by Democrats in Maryland (Lamone v. Benisek) — despite the fact that hundreds of thousands in the two states have been stripped of their voice in Washington by power-hungry politicians. Supreme Court will allow abuse Several justices, including those who voted with the majority, acknowledged in oral arguments the damage done to our democracy by extreme partisan gerrymandering, and three lower courts have found clear legal standards to evaluate allegations of partisan gerrymandering. Yet the five justices in the majority concluded that the court could not set a constitutional standard to prevent partisan gerrymandering.