Saturday, February 24 , 2018, 4:34 pm | Fair 59º

 
 
 
 
Advice

Michael Barone: Supreme Court Grapples, Once Again, With Redistricting

Fifty-one years ago the Supreme Court handed down its one-person-one-vote decision, requiring that within each state, congressional and legislative districts must have equal populations. 

That gave redistricters a relatively easy standard to meet. Census data provides block-by-block population counts every 10 years, and it's possible now to draw lines for districts so that their populations are identical or vary by just one person. 

Nonetheless, redistricting cases keep making their way to the Court. 

One reason is that the Voting Rights Act amendments of the 1980s have been interpreted as requiring the creation of a maximum number of districts with majorities or near-majorities of black or Hispanic residents, which has produced many grotesquely shaped constituencies and much litigation. 

This month the Court heard two other redistricting cases. One, Evenwel v. Abbott, was brought in Texas.

The plaintiffs argue that districts should be equal not in total population but in number of eligible voters. They live in areas where almost all adult residents are citizens, but in other areas — the Lower Rio Grande Valley particularly — a majority of residents aren't, because they are non-citizens or children.

As a result, some districts have two to three times as many eligible voters as others. That's not equal representation, plaintiffs argue.

This was not a situation foreseen in 1964. Due to restrictive immigration laws, depression and war, the nation's population had the lowest percentage of non-citizens since the 1830s, and in the baby boom era, just about every part of the country had similar percentages of adults and children.

Equal population districts thus tended to generate districts with equal numbers of eligible voters.

Plus, the courts have made exceptions to the equal-population rule, so that prison populations and military bases are not counted for state legislative representation. You don't want to create a district where no one is eligible to vote.

Today some heavily immigrant districts come close to that. California's congressional districts had equal total populations in the 2010 Census, but in November 2012, 337,634 people voted in the low-immigrant-population 4th district in the northwest Sierra and only 119,234 voted in the heavily Hispanic 21st district in the Central Valley. 

There's an intellectually respectable argument that districts should be based on eligible voter population rather than total population, or, as Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested, could be.

Texas's position is that its Republican legislature chose to use total population (even though using eligible voters would help Republicans) and that that is at least permissible as well, if not mandatory. 

There's one other problem for the Evenwel plaintiffs. The Census taken every 10 years provides fine grain detail on total population. The Census's American Community Survey and other sources provide estimates and less detail.

That leaves more room for districters to draw lines for partisan advantage — gerrymandering. 

It seems unlikely that the Court will require use of eligible voters, but if a majority of justices indicate they'll permit it, that could have repercussions — mostly in favor of Republicans — in redistricting following the 2020 Census or if, as permitted, they redraw their lines before that.

The other redistricting case heard last month, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, raises the issue of whether a plan in which district populations vary by 10 percent can be invalidated because it favors one party.

Here the Court has an opportunity to set a standard that will cut back on its redistricting caseload. 

Arizona's reputedly nonpartisan commission, like California's, was successfully stacked by Democrats and drew lines that tended to pack large numbers of Republicans into a few districts with above-average populations.

The commission says it acted to align districts with county lines, as if legislators are supposed to represent governmental units rather than people.

In 2012, Republicans carried Arizona's vote for U.S. House of Representatives by a 52 to 44 percent margin. Under the commission's plan, Republicans won only four districts and Democrats five.

Winning Republicans won 61 to 67 percent of the vote. Three winning Democrats won margins averaging of 2.9 percent.

The Court has refused to overturn even blatantly partisan plans, notably one by Pennsylvania Republicans, but allowing districts to be 10 percent larger or smaller than average provides redistricters with far greater opportunity for gerrymandering than a requirement that districts come very close to equal populations. 

Courts can't stop partisan gerrymandering entirely, but they can limit its effectiveness by enforcing strict numerical equality by simple arithmetic.

Supreme Court justices weary of redistricting cases might keep that in mind.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >