Just How Much Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional? Wisconsin Plaintiffs Want the Supreme Court to Rule.

Advocacy groups and plaintiffs pushing a Wisconsin lawsuit, as well as political scientists around the country, hope to establish a standard for just how much politicians should be allowed to gerrymander political maps.

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission attorney Mary O'Grady, left, speaks with Stephen Miller, a Casa Grande city council member, as they point to a possible map outlining the new congressional landscape during a 2011 meeting in Tempe.
AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin
Jack Fitzpatrick
Add to Briefcase
Jack Fitzpatrick
Nov. 4, 2015, 8 p.m.

Every dec­ade, when state le­gis­latures across the coun­try draw dis­tricts for them­selves and their con­gres­sion­al del­eg­a­tions, some law­makers vi­ol­ate voters’ con­sti­tu­tion­al rights by pack­ing mem­bers of the minor­ity party in­to as few dis­tricts as pos­sible.

At least, that’s what the Su­preme Court has hin­ted at in past rul­ings, when it wrote that ex­treme par­tis­an ger­ry­man­der­ing can vi­ol­ate voters’ First and Four­teenth Amend­ment rights to free­dom of speech and due pro­cess. The prob­lem, the Court wrote in its 2006 League of United Lat­in Amer­ic­an Cit­izens v. Perry de­cision, is that it can’t strike down ger­ry­mandered maps without some sort of tool to de­term­ine ex­actly when dis­trict bound­ar­ies are skewed so drastic­ally that they dis­crim­in­ate based on voters’ party af­fil­i­ations. The wind­ing, snake-like dis­tricts of­ten used to il­lus­trate ger­ry­man­der­ing aren’t ne­ces­sar­ily signs of ill in­tent, and it’s of­ten ne­ces­sary to have some vari­ation in how po­lar­ized or com­pet­it­ive dis­tricts are.

But the Wis­con­sin-based plaintiffs in a law­suit filed this sum­mer think that they have found the for­mula that the Court has been wait­ing for. And if they man­age to push their case to the high court and win, the law­suit’s con­sequences could ex­tend from Wis­con­sin across the en­tire na­tion.

In a new U.S. Dis­trict Court case, Whit­ford v. Nich­ol, the plaintiffs pro­pose judging ger­ry­man­der­ing via a concept called the “ef­fi­ciency gap,” based on an aca­dem­ic pa­per writ­ten in 2014 by polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists Nich­olas Stephan­o­poulos and Eric McGhee.

The pro­pos­al is sur­pris­ingly simple for such an ar­cane sub­ject: Start by adding up each party’s “wasted” votes that don’t help them win a dis­trict. (If Party A wins 90 votes out of 100, 39 of its votes are wasted, since it only needs 51 for a ma­jor­ity. All 10 of Party B’s votes are also wasted in this scen­ario.) The dif­fer­ence between each party’s wasted votes, di­vided by the total num­ber of votes cast, is the “ef­fi­ciency gap.”

Across the Wis­con­sin State As­sembly, Stephan­o­poulos and McGhee found a 13-per­cent ef­fi­ciency gap in 2012 and 10-per­cent gap in 2014, both fa­vor­ing Re­pub­lic­ans. That trans­lates to Re­pub­lic­ans win­ning 13 per­cent more seats in 2012 and 10 per­cent more in 2014 than they would have un­der a map that treated mem­bers of both parties equally.

In Whit­ford, the plaintiffs use the ef­fi­ciency gap to il­lus­trate how steeply dis­ad­vant­aged Demo­crats are in the state. But be­cause Whit­ford is the first time that any plaintiffs have pro­posed this kind of test to meas­ure the ex­tremity of ger­ry­man­der­ing, the law­suit’s re­per­cus­sions could ex­tend far bey­ond Wis­con­sin.

“A sweep­ing, na­tion­wide Su­preme Court vic­tory is sort of the dream scen­ario,” said Stephan­o­poulos, who is also one of the law­yers work­ing for the plaintiffs.

He ad­ded that he would also wel­come a de­cision that only strikes down Wis­con­sin’s As­sembly map, which would cre­ate a guideline for fu­ture law­suits else­where. But Stephan­o­poulos ex­pects the de­fend­ants to ap­peal to the Su­preme Court if they lose.

If the Court rules in the plaintiffs’ fa­vor, it could es­tab­lish the ef­fi­ciency gap test as an of­fi­cial meas­ure for ger­ry­man­der­ing in all states. But in ad­di­tion to hav­ing a meas­ure­ment for how ex­treme ger­ry­man­der­ing is in any giv­en state, the Court would have to ac­tu­ally define how big an ef­fi­ciency gap would have to be in or­der to be un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

Stephan­o­poulos’s and McGhee’s re­com­mend­a­tion: 8 per­cent as the threshold for state­houses, and whatever per­cent­age adds up to at least two seats for con­gres­sion­al maps.

By that meas­ure, Flor­ida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vir­gin­ia all have con­gres­sion­al maps that vi­ol­ate voters’ con­sti­tu­tion­al rights. At the state level, this meas­ure would in­val­id­ate polit­ic­al bound­ar­ies in Idaho, In­di­ana, Kan­sas, Mas­sachu­setts, Michigan, Mis­souri, North Car­o­lina, Ohio, Ok­lahoma, Rhode Is­land, Vir­gin­ia, Wis­con­sin, and Wyom­ing.

These states won’t all ne­ces­sar­ily have to draw new maps if Wis­con­sin’s As­sembly map is ruled un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, though. The plaintiffs base their ar­gu­ment against Wis­con­sin’s map heav­ily—though not solely—on the ef­fi­ciency gap meas­ure­ment. Stephan­o­poulos said it’s pos­sible a court will rule against Wis­con­sin’s maps without ap­prov­ing of this par­tic­u­lar meas­ure­ment or choos­ing a dif­fer­ent per­cent­age as the line in the sand against ger­ry­man­der­ing.

The ef­fi­ciency-gap stand­ard has already come un­der cri­ti­cism. Its re­li­ance on elec­tion res­ults means that the stand­ard could be thrown by un­con­tested races or the nat­ur­al ad­vant­age that in­cum­bents build up the longer they hold a seat, said Wis­con­sin As­sist­ant At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Bri­an Keen­an, who is de­fend­ing his state’s map. And if a “wasted” vote is a sign of dis­crim­in­a­tion, that would make nearly every vote for a third-party can­did­ate a sign of ger­ry­man­der­ing, Keen­an ad­ded.

Des­pite the Su­preme Court’s hints that ex­treme ger­ry­man­der­ing could be un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, Keen­an said it’s an in­her­ent char­ac­ter­ist­ic of hav­ing dis­tricts—rather than pro­por­tion­al rep­res­ent­a­tion—that the rep­res­ent­a­tion in le­gis­latures isn’t equal to over­all pop­u­lar votes. Demo­crats now tend to live in more densely pop­u­lated, urb­an areas, mak­ing it more nat­ur­al to en­circle a large num­ber of them in a single dis­trict. The con­gres­sion­al dis­trict centered on Mil­wau­kee, for ex­ample, is a deep-blue dis­trict where Rep. Gwen Moore has won at least 69 per­cent of the vote in every elec­tion since she first ran in 2004.

“Dis­trict­ing it­self isn’t un­con­sti­tu­tion­al,” Keen­an said. “By dis­trict­ing, you just group people, and what you’re sup­posed to do is look at com­munit­ies of in­terest and group­ing like people to­geth­er. And if you do that prop­erly and it ends up with cer­tain groups not be­ing able to con­vert seats as well, that’s just kind of the breaks, it seems like. It’s not a con­sti­tu­tion­al prob­lem.”

If the ef­fi­ciency-gap meas­ure­ment is flawed, ger­ry­man­der­ing op­pon­ents have a backup plan. Com­mon Cause, the polit­ic­al ad­vocacy non­profit, launched a com­pet­i­tion this year for polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists to sub­mit their own ger­ry­mander stand­ards.

Ac­cord­ing to SUNY Bing­hamton pro­fess­or Mi­chael D. Mc­Don­ald, who sub­mit­ted the win­ning pro­pos­al along with as­sist­ant pro­fess­or Robin Best, the com­pet­i­tion’s goal was not ne­ces­sar­ily to in­sert the stand­ard in­to a law­suit aim­ing for the Su­preme Court. The stand­ards could be ac­cep­ted by in­de­pend­ent state re­dis­trict­ing com­mis­sions or a state like Flor­ida, where par­tis­an ger­ry­man­der­ing was out­lawed by con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment—but nev­er ac­tu­ally defined.

Mc­Don­ald and Best pro­posed com­par­ing a party’s statewide vote with its per­cent­age in the me­di­an dis­trict. Il­leg­al ger­ry­man­der­ing will have oc­curred, by their stand­ard, when a party con­sist­ently wins a ma­jor­ity of the statewide vote but loses the me­di­an dis­trict.

Once a court, com­mis­sion, or le­gis­lature in some state ac­cepts a ger­ry­man­der­ing stand­ard, it will have sig­ni­fic­ant long-term ripple ef­fects, Mc­Don­ald be­lieves.

“Vir­tu­ally every state, once they’re told that’s the stand­ard, they play by those rules,” Mc­Don­ald said.

What We're Following See More »
Avenatti Arrested For Felony Domestic Violence
1 hours ago
Judge to Rule Thursday on Ranked-Choice Voting
2 hours ago
Flake Threatens to Withhold Support for Judges
2 hours ago
Mueller Probing Whether Roger Stone Intimidated Witness
4 hours ago

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office is exploring whether longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone tried to intimidate and discredit a witness who is contradicting Mr. Stone’s version of events about his contacts with WikiLeaks, according to people who have spoken to Mr. Mueller’s investigators. In grand jury sessions and interviews, prosecutors have repeatedly asked about emails, text messages and online posts involving Mr. Stone and his former friend, New York radio personality Randy Credico, the people said. Mr. Stone has asserted that Mr. Credico was his backchannel to WikiLeaks, a controversial transparency group, an assertion Mr. Credico denies."

McCarthy Elected House Minority Speaker
5 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.