WASHINGTON -- The death of Justice Antonin Scalia left many Supreme Court decisions up in the air. In particular, a set of decisions on redistricting could lead to a sea change in election laws and leave Democrats breathing easier.
Currently, states can draw election districts to benefit the party in power and face limited consequences. But a series of major redistricting cases the court is set to decide before the end of June could result in outcomes more favorable to Democrats and voting rights advocates.
In Arizona, Republicans challenged districts drawn by the state's independent redistricting commission. In Virginia, a lower court ruled that the GOP unconstitutionally gerrymandered districts to dilute the voting strength of African-Americans. And in Texas, Republican plaintiffs want to upend current redistricting practices, in which state legislative districts are drawn according to population, and instead require state legislatures to draw districts based on the number of eligible voters in each district. A ruling in their favor would shift political power from Democratic-leaning urban centers to rural, Republican-leaning areas, but voting rights experts are optimistic that the court will decide to preserve the status quo.
Advertisement
More immediately, the court had to decide whether it wanted to intervene in North Carolina before its March 15 primary, after a federal three-judge panel ruled on Feb. 5 that the state’s GOP-controlled legislature unconstitutionally packed black voters into fewer congressional districts when they drew district boundaries in 2011. The case is just one in a lineup of gerrymandering-related litigation that continues five years after states redrew their district boundaries.
Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing districts to give one political party an advantage in as many districts as possible while consolidating the other party's voters into as few as possible. The North Carolina districts deemed unconstitutional are considered two of the country’s most egregiously gerrymandered.
The judges gave state lawmakers until Feb. 19 to draw new district lines, so Republican Gov. Pat McCrory called the legislature back to vote on new boundaries in a special session beginning Thursday.
Advertisement
Republicans were hoping that the Supreme Court would be persuaded that implementing new districts so soon before the state’s primaries would confuse and disenfranchise voters, who have already started filling out and returning absentee ballots. But the court denied North Carolina's request to stay the lower court's ruling on Friday. The congressional primaries will be moved to June 7, as opposed to March 15. And it's possible that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals could still reject the new maps approved by the legislature.
The GOP’s new map maintains the partisan split of the state’s congressional delegation, with 10 Republican districts and three Democratic ones -- even though 51 percent of voters chose a Democratic congressional representative in the 2012 election. The new districts are more compact and make the surrounding GOP-held districts slightly less Republican-leaning, but Democrats are crying foul, arguing that the map still dilutes the power of the state’s black voters.
“They have been working on this... so that they could ensure that there’s a correlation between party performance and race,” state Rep. Dan Blue told The News & Observer. “When you intentionally segregate out people, even based on partisan affiliation or performance, you discriminate against them.”
Blue’s comment hit upon a major issue with the Supreme Court’s redistricting jurisprudence. Partisanship and race overlap because racial minorities tend to vote for Democrats. But while the Supreme Court has intervened in race-based gerrymandering cases, citing the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, it has not developed standards for how to decide partisan gerrymandering cases.
In 2004, the court split on the question of whether Republicans in Pennsylvania drew district maps that were unconstitutional. Four conservatives -- Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas and Scalia -- ruled that there were no standards enabling the court to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. But Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing vote, didn’t foreclose the possibility that such standards could be delineated in the future. (The court's four more liberal justice said they would police partisan gerrymandering and laid out standards for how they would do that.)
Advertisement
Only one of the justices who opposed scrutinizing partisan gerrymandering remains on the court today, giving voting rights advocates hope that, if the court revisits the issue, it could decide it does have the power to intervene to correct overly partisan districts.
If Obama overcomes Republican opposition in the Senate and gets it to confirm a replacement for Scalia, or if Democrats retake the Senate and keep the White House in November’s general election, partisan gerrymandering could come under more judicial scrutiny. In that case, states would have more of an incentive to de-politicize their redistricting processes and draw more competitive districts.
Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program, suggested that a Scalia replacement appointed by a Democrat would be willing to revisit partisan gerrymandering.
“Even assuming that [the court’s conservative justices] think partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable" -- meaning an issue that can be decided by the courts -- "there’s a potential for replacing Scalia with someone who thinks it is," Li told The Huffington Post. "Then you could break the logjam on partisan gerrymandering and give the opportunity for the courts to police it."
Advertisement
Li said that such a development would have huge implications in Southern states like North Carolina, whose GOP leaders defend their redistricting plans by arguing that they were aiming to marginalize Democrats rather than African-Americans and Latinos, even though Democrats tend to be African-American and Latino.
If gerrymandering continues unabated, Democrats will struggle to retake the House. In 2012, for instance, Democratic House candidates received nearly 1.4 million more votes than GOP candidates, yet Republicans maintained their disproportionate majority in the chamber, due in part to favorable district boundaries drawn by their counterparts in state legislatures. There’s no sign that this trend will change absent intervention from the Supreme Court, since Republicans have a lock on state legislatures and Democrats are already at a geographic disadvantage because their voters tend to cluster together.
Of course, the GOP isn’t the only party that gerrymanders for partisan advantage. Democrats have also drawn district lines to minimize their Republican colleagues’ electoral prospects. Three Maryland voters sued the state in 2013 over its 2011 maps on the grounds that the district lines violated their rights to free speech and association. Their case was dismissed last year by a district judge, so they asked the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, and it did, unanimously, in December.
The court’s majority opinion in that case -- the last one Scalia wrote -- kept the partisan gerrymandering case alive.
UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect Friday's Supreme Court ruling.
Advertisement
Related on HuffPost:
Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
A mourner pays his respects in front of a portrait of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during a private visitation in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19, 2016.
Al Drago via Getty Images
A pallbearer holds his hands as he stands watch as members of the public pass through the Great Hall of the Supreme Court as they pay their respects to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in Washington on Feb. 19, 2016.
Pool via Getty Images
A woman cries as friends and staff of the Supreme Court attend a private ceremony in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court where late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lay in repose on Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
NICHOLAS KAMM via Getty Images
People look at a portrait of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19, 2016, as he lies in repose at the Supreme Court until his funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on Feb. 20.
Drew Angerer via Getty Images
The casket of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lies in repose in the Great Hall at the U.S. Supreme Court, Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The family of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia take their seats as Supreme Court justices stand for a private ceremony in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 19, 2016. From back left are Counselor to the Chief Justice Jeffrey Minear and Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Advertisement
Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Staff of the Supreme Court attend a private visitation in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court where late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lies in repose in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19, 2016.
Mark Wilson via Getty Images
The casket of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is carried by U.S. Supreme Court police officers, at the Supreme Court building, Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C. Justice Scalia will lie in repose in the Great Hall, where visitors can pay their respects.
Cristian Farias/The Huffington Post
Supreme Court staff, clerks and former clerks line up on the plaza to await the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia's casket.
Advertisement
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Law clerks line the stairs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in anticipation of the arrival of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's casket.
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
One hundred eighty law clerks line the stairs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as court police pallbearers carry Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's casket into the building.
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Maureen Scalia, center, widow of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, waits on the portico of the court building to receive her husband's casket Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Maureen Scalia, center, widow of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, is escorted by family members as she walks out of the court building to receive her husband's casket Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
People hold signs of thanks and support while waiting in line to pay their respects to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia outside the court on Feb. 19, 2016, in Washington, D.C.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.