An all-out assault on American democracy

Extreme gerrymandering is a serious threat to our democratic rights.

Wendy Kaminer
columnist

Share
Topics Politics USA

If you’re going to lie to John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, don’t do it in plain view. That’s one lesson the Trump administration might take from his majority opinion in Department of Commerce v New York, a challenge to the addition of a citizenship question to the decennial census.

Roberts, joined by his four liberal colleagues, upheld the administration’s power to add a citizenship question to the census. But he rejected the Commerce Department’s stated reason for doing so as an obvious – or too obvious – lie. Secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross falsely claimed that the question would provide information needed to protect minority-voting rights, when, in fact, its purpose was to provide information useful in diluting minority votes. Asking about citizenship ‘would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats’ and ‘advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites’, a strategist who specialised in drawing congressional districts favourable to Republicans advised (on a hard drive discovered after his death, shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its decision).

In other words, the citizenship question would help consolidate Republican power at the state and federal level for the next decade, until the 2030 census is carried out. How would it do so? There is little dispute that it would discourage both legal and undocumented immigrants from answering the census, resulting in inaccurately low population totals in the states and cities where immigrants are concentrated. Congressional and state legislative districts are drawn every 10 years, using population counts provided by the decennial census. Federal funds are also allocated according to population. So the predominantly Democratic states and cities in which immigrants are concentrated would lose funding and political representation when new federal and state districts are drawn in 2021.

Roberts was tactful, but clear, in accusing the secretary of commerce of lying to the courts. He came up with several relatively polite ways of calling Wilbur Ross a liar: ‘The evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary’s explanation for his decision… the sole stated reason seems to have been contrived… we cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.’ But the Roberts opinion did not resolve the controversy over the census question. It upheld a lower court decision sending the matter back to the Commerce Department. This could make the controversy moot – if census questionnaires must be printed before the department can address the court’s concerns. But the president wants to delay the printing and Justice Roberts, the swing vote in this case, may accept a better pretext, or less obvious lie, for inquiring about citizenship status. Or maybe he’ll be mollified if the secretary simply tells the truth – that the question was intended to serve partisan political interests.

In a case decided the same day as the census decision, Rucho, et al v Common Cause, Roberts wrote the five-to-four opinion upholding the power of elected officials to engage in extreme, overtly partisan gerrymandering – the design of federal and state congressional districts by the party in power that dilutes votes for the party out of power. Joined this time by his four conservative colleagues, Roberts rejected a challenge to gerrymandered districts favouring Democrats in Maryland and Republicans in North Carolina. In both states, gerrymandering enabled the majority party to maintain disproportionate legislative power.

There was no question in either case that districts were drawn to benefit the party in power and protect it from changes in popular opinion. Any doubts about the crudely cynical partisanship of gerrymanders were dispelled by comments from a Republican state legislator in North Carolina: ‘I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats’, he explained to a redistricting committee. ‘I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.’

You might think that in a democracy, the voters should decide what’s better for the country, as Justice Elena Kagan suggested in a strong dissent in Rucho. You might even think that the constitution guarantees that votes will count equally, regardless of the voter’s party affiliation. You’d be wrong, according to the court’s conservative majority. It found that voters have no such rights, dismissing Equal Protection arguments against vote dilution, as well as First Amendment claims that gerrymandering punishes voters loyal to the minority party. It found, instead, that the court is powerless to intervene in the political questions that gerrymandering raises.

The dismissal of First Amendment claims is particularly striking, given the court’s record of protecting speech rights in the purely political context of campaign-finance rules. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have held that unlimited campaign contributions by individual and corporate donors to parties and candidates should be considered ‘protected speech’, striking down numerous restrictions on them. I don’t disagree with these decisions, but I do consider the speech and associational rights of ordinary voters in gerrymandering cases to be at least as strong as the rights of major donors to political campaigns.

Gerrymandering engages in differential treatment of voters, based on their constitutionally protected political views. A Rucho amicus brief from the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression explains: ‘Citizens with favoured views are assembled into districts in a manner most likely to ensure that their preferred candidates will prevail… Citizens with disfavoured views are… assigned to districts in ways designed to minimise their political efficacy and defeat their political views.’ This is ‘unambiguously an official act of viewpoint discrimination’.

Gerrymandering also infringes on our rights of association, essential to meaningful voter participation. Individual voters who can’t write six or seven-figure cheques to campaigns find political power by associating with parties and advocacy groups, right and left. Gerrymandering discriminates against voters who use their associational rights to challenge the party in power.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, both parties will now undoubtedly engage in aggressive gerrymandering (although Republicans, who control more states, have more opportunities to do so), while challenges to gerrymandering move to state courts.

Some states also provide for voter referendums that effectively bypass legislators, and Roberts suggested that gerrymandering could be put to popular votes. But as Kagan pointed out in her dissent, referendums are allowed in fewer than half of all states. And in those states that do allow referendums, legislators in the majority often qualify or effectively nullify referendum results that they oppose. In Florida, for example, the Republican governor has just signed a bill passed by the Republican legislature effectively undoing a referendum enfranchising convicted felons. In Missouri, as Kagan stressed, the legislature is in the process of undoing a popular vote to have its voting districts drawn by a non-partisan state demographer.

American voters are in trouble. Democracy fails when legislators, the executive and the courts have so little regard for it.

Wendy Kaminer is an author, a lawyer and a former national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Hana Jinks

3rd July 2019 at 12:38 am

Immigrants?

These people are economic migrants, and aren’t the responsibility of the American taxpayer. They need to be rounded up and deported, and the wall needs to be built, post-haste.

Steve Roberts

2nd July 2019 at 5:14 pm

It has been a while since Kaminer has published here anything resembling objectivity, we are usually given the anti Trump treatment full on where impartiality or rationality is replaced with a panic stricken plea for Trump to be stopped in any manner of ways.
She has not let us down entirely as can be seen from the article but it is pointed out that the discrepancies and dangers she alludes to are also used and abused by Democrats alike and have been for a very long time, that should concern us all.
However Kaminer needs to seek deeper and wider if the concern is for democracy itself, or what that really means, it may lead to the conclusion not that democracy has failed or is in danger but that it has never really existed. The huge and deliberate separation of powers, the checks and balances so heralded in the constitution may well reveal that if challenged what they truly are is checks and restrictions to the demos actually assuming political control.
That possibility , of politcal control would be a democratic one, but one not possible within the present constitution, that’s its purpose.
When Kaminer decides to write about these basic tenets it may be easier to approach her articles with more objectivity ourselves.

Winston Stanley

2nd July 2019 at 6:00 pm

Totally agree. Representative party democracy acts as a buffer between the state and the demos here in the UK too. We get to choose between what two parties want to do, and we are never asked what we actually want. We end up with states that permanently enforce the status quo, with parties usually just adding policies to tinker with and to reinforce the status quo. It might better be termed a (usually two) party state than a democracy.

Referenda are the way to go, we need some process by which the demos can call a referendum on any matter that we like, and as many matters as we like, if we can get a petition of say 4 million or however many, and then it automatically goes to referendum. Another referendum can again be held on the same matter, say ten years later. That would empower the demos and make society far more democratic.

States do not like to give us referenda, because they do not really want us to control our own society. States want to uphold the status quo and various interests like business. It is a capitalist state at base. And parties like to maintain the party system to allow them to implement all the tinkering that _they_ want.

“State” mainly = stasis, to stand still, a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.
“long periods of stasis”

As Steve alludes, this is not really a democracy. We need a party to implement a referenda system, maybe the Brexit Party or the Lib Dems. Maybe they could even cooperate after the next GE and implement some radical democratic changes, rather than focusing on just their own policy agendas – do the right thing for a change.

Jerry Owen

2nd July 2019 at 4:56 pm

Making the Democrats play a little more by the rules. oh dear !
Still at least Wendy didn’t try the old fake story she has in the past trying to infer that the Don thinks Nazis are very fine people !

Robert Spowart

2nd July 2019 at 2:30 pm

Allowing people who are not US Citizens the vote is wrong, just as allowing non-UK citizens a vote in British elections is also wrong.
The only interest that both the Democrats and our Labour Party have in illegal immigrants is for their votes and it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Neil McCaughan

2nd July 2019 at 12:06 pm

Anything which disadvantages the Democrats is fine by all decent people.

gershwin gentile

2nd July 2019 at 1:31 pm

The Plantation is looking awful empty, ain’t it?

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.