Supreme court upholds independent redistricting in blow to gerrymandering

The US supreme court has ruled that states can appoint independent commissions to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, rejecting a challenge by Arizona Republicans in a decision that could have wide-ranging effects on the partisan congressional redistricting practice known as gerrymandering.

The court’s decision affirms the constitutionality of an Arizona state ballot measure approved by voters in 2000, which allowed an independent commissioner to determine congressional districts in the state.

State legislatures determine congressional district boundaries after each census, as dictated by the constitution, but the Arizona measure sought to undo this model, which is widely understood as a tool for partisan lawmakers to divvy up districts to favor the political party in power – also known as gerrymandering.

The supreme court ruled 5-4 that the elections clause of the US constitution does not disallow such commissions from being created.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion that the clause “doubly empowers the people” for redistricting purposes.

“They may control the State’s lawmaking processes in the first instance, as Arizona voters have done, and they may seek Congress’ correction of regulations prescribed by state legislatures,” she wrote.

Two Republicans, two Democrats and an independent commissioner formed the committee, which Arizona’s Republican-controlled legislature challenged in 2012. The supreme court agreed in 2014 to consider the case and on Monday decided that the system falls within the constitutional guidelines for determining congressional boundaries, and that the commission does not harm the state legislature.

The supreme court’s oral arguments for the case in March focused on what precisely a “legislature” is – and its decision could have changed the look of the state house. California has a similar commission; this ruling effectively affirms its validity too.

Chief justice John Roberts dissented from the majority opinion and was joined by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Scalia and Thomas also wrote dissents.

The Republican-dominated Arizona legislature sued to challenge the commission, saying that it undermined the legislature’s constitutionally protected authority to determine aspects of the election process.

Had the legislature won, the Republicans were ready to hold a special session to redraw district boundaries, which would have likely further strengthened their dominance in the state.

The supreme court’s ruling could help limit the practice of gerrymandering, which the Republican party used to great effect after the 2010 census.

With control of most state legislatures, they were able to redraw districts to maximize potential Republican wins. Then, in 2012, Republicans achieved a 33-seat majority in the House, though the party had 1.4m fewer votes across the board.

Roberts said that the constitution’s election clause did not give authority to the public, but was instead meant for elected officials.

“The amendment resulted from an arduous, decades-long campaign in which reformers across the country worked hard to garner approval from Congress and three-quarters of the States,” Roberts said.

“What chumps! Didn’t they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term ‘the legislature’ to mean ‘the people’? The court today performs just such a magic trick with the elections clause.”

Kathay Feng, the national redistricting director for liberal thinktank Common Cause, said that with this ruling, “the supreme court recognized that gerrymandering has to be addressed”.

She is optimistic that the decision will encourage citizens to push for initiatives that would make for a more transparent electoral process.

Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, celebrated the decision in a statement. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case.

“This ruling affirms that voters have the flexibility to adopt a commonsense reform to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering by using an independent nonpartisan commission to draw congressional districts,” said Ho.

“In essence, it says voters can keep the fox from guarding the henhouse.”