With regards to SCOTUS‘ refusal to rebuff gerrymandering, Professor Rebecca Spang of Indiana University suggests that they are putting society and democracy at significant risk:
A revolution is not a single event but a process, one driven in 1790s France as much by opposition to needed reform as it was by demands for a particular ideological system. The French Revolutionaries were not Russian Bolsheviks: They did not dream of revolution in advance and many came to regret their involvement. Nonetheless, in 1789, many comfortable men and women concluded that the society they had always known needed to be overturned and completely transformed. Reactionaries, who would never agree to more incremental changes, played a major part in radicalizing them.
On this Bastille Day, Americans should take note of this history. The Supreme Court’s recent decision that the federal courts cannot adjudicate or limit partisan gerrymandering should give us all pause; wielded with modern technical precision is massively anti-democratic, and apt to leave Americans feeling powerless to change things by working through routine political channels. The entire system is at risk of being discredited. People across the country today have urgent and competing grievances and concerns, but the institutions that are meant to adjudicate those differences are every day losing more and more of their legitimacy. If a way cannot be found to restore trust in our shared institutions, the 18th-century case suggests change will come through other means.
This has certainly been a decision that has given rise to a number of opinions, although I have to wonder if Spang’s suggestion that revolution may come of it, rather than a more effective time of participation in democracy, might be a little bit of hyperbole.
Still – and the real reason I’m writing this post – if the Democrats want to reprimand SCOTUS for not ruling to support anti-gerrymandering efforts, I have a suggestion. It’s nearly redistricting time, and the State of California, currently home to 53 Representatives to Congress, of which seven are Republican and the remaining 46 are Democrats, might be the best place for the Democrats take action[1].
It’s simple enough. Gerrymander the state such that all areas which have Republican majorities are lumped into one or, if necessary due to rules about the population-size of each district, two districts. The key here is to make this district geographically discontinuous.
Sounds weird, doesn’t it? Little blobs of, say, District 1 scattered across the State. But it might be worth trying just to be rid of one of the two least respected members of Congress, Duncan Hunter and Devin Nunes. Run against each other, boys.
Of course, that’s not really my point. My point is to wave a big red flag in front of SCOTUS. Gerrymandering on the basis of race is already out of bounds, but they don’t wish to get involved in politics. If the Democrats want to give them a reason to get involved, commit the foul themselves and dare them to do something about it. When defending themselves in hearings, California’s lawyers should cite the recent decision as giving them cover, and explicitly state that ruling against them would also invalidate the other ruling; a reversal, if you will.
Sometimes, the crime of the absurd must be committed in order to shine a light on the absurd.
1 For those interested in the question of whether or not California is already gerrymandered, the information offered by Public Policy Institute of California may be of interest:
California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.4%) is up slightly from 2014 (43.4%), while the share of Republicans (25.1%) has declined since 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. Our surveys indicate that 47% of those we consider most likely to vote are Democrats, 28% are Republicans, and 21% are independents.
Assuming independents break in similar numbers, this suggests Democrats outnumber Republicans at something like two-to-one odds, very roughly speaking, or 66% to 33%. The delegation is 86% to 13%, rounded off. I failed to find numbers reflecting aggregate voting for House members.
