Time Supremes Ended Racial Gerrymandering?

Seemingly forever, the Supreme Court has struggled reviewing state electoral maps & political parties gerrymandering their boundaries to win elections. Racial gerrymanders? Biggest pain. Time to declare the charade unconstitutional?

The WSJ’s editorial board recently addressed the never-ending redistricting litigation that’s exhausting the Justices: “Monday felt like Groundhog Day at the Supreme Court as the Justices heard another redistricting challenge (Louisiana v. Callais). If the robed Nine are tired of reviewing state maps, they could declare racial gerrymanders unconstitutional – full stop. Louisiana like other states is trying to navigate a narrow map-making strait. If states weigh race too heavily, they can run afoul of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. But if they ignore race, they can be sued for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana has been hit both ways.”

The details of this case are as obtuse as they are in most. The bottom line is that decades of waffling on the subject by the Supremes in a long series of cases has made their “fine line” between what redistricting is ok and not ok is as clear as mud. Yet, the WSJ notes, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel when Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that maybe it’s time to simply bar ANY consideration of race when redistricting congressional boundaries: “The Court’s long said that race-based remedial action must have a logical end point. Indeed, the editors note, “The Roberts Court has gradually moved to return to the Constitution’s race-neutral principles as expressed in the Civil War-era amendments.” Taken to its logical conclusion or end point, then, the WSJ concludes, “It would free states from their confusing predicament and liberate the Justices from constant intervention in the inherently political task of redistricting. Hear ye!

Davd Soul