Jacquelin Chota: A difference in Interpretations

Jacquelin Chota

Matthew Hitt

POLS 304

September 18, 2019

A Difference In Interpretations

            As old as the Constitution is, our entire nation still uses it as a reference for policy making, court cases, citizens’ rights, etc. While the constitution is useful as a reference, it is often interpreted different, especially by different partisans. A recent case that has taken place this year is the Rucho v. Common Cause case. Arguing that gerrymandering is unconstitutional and a violation of voter’s rights.

            Gerrymandering has been around for almost as long as the nation. The idea to manipulate boundaries, favoring a partisanship or class. It has an enormous effect on the electoral constituency and has been a problem individuals who are negatively affected, are trying to eliminate for decades. Minorities are often the ones who take the hit because it causes their party to “waste votes”. The plaintiffs understand that political bias will always be around when drawing district lines. However, in recent years, “Republicans captured state legislatures around the country, they have been the primary beneficiaries” (Litpak). The redrawing of voting districts has made it almost impossible for a fair election, leaving the opposition struggling to acquire a fair race for office. Justice Elena Kagan said, “the practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government,” she said. “Part of the court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections” (Litpak).

            In Rucho v. Common Cause, the judges referred to the constitution and ruled that gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. However, the issue is not that “legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines,” because that “would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities” (Rucho v. Common Cause). The court insisted that “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions” (Barnes).

“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures” (Litpak). This goes into the separation of powers and how the judicial branch has no say in policy or lawmaking, that is the legislature’s job. The legislative branch gave power to the states’ government officials to decide how voter districting would work. To rule against that would be considered unconstitutional according to the justices ruling. In the article, Our Broken Constitution, it has always been known that, “drawing district lines has always been a deeply political undertaking, because elected officials in every age cultivate a strong instinct for self-preservation” (Tooblin).

            Gerrymandering could potentially fall under a civil rights matter due to the informal targeting of minorities. The case argued the violation of the 15^th amendment “disallowing race, color, or previous condition of servitude as criteria for restricting voting rights” (Adler), while it is not in fine print, the restricting criteria for voting in the 21st century is usually economic status. Similarly, in 1908, most states adopted Jim Crow laws, which were set in place to intimidate African Americans and keep them from voting. Because “they did not discriminate explicitly by race”, the states were able to sidestep the “provisions of the 15th amendment” (Adler). While Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, argue the constitution stands for fair elections, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and John G. Roberts Jr. argue that while it holds a bias, they cannot tell the state legislatures how they should redraw voting districts.

    The constitution is a broad perspective of the founding fathers, it is up to our governmental system today, to accommodate the changes our nation faces in this new age. Fredrick Douglas once said that he saw the “potential to mount a critique of slavery, and much else, from within” (Adler). That “much else” portion could be referring to the challenges we are facing due to the diversity in race, gender, class, etc. Or perhaps the founding fathers wanted the new governmental officials to continue their views by abiding by the constitution.

   

  Adler, E. Scott, et al. The United States Congress. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Barnes, Robert. “Supreme Court Says Federal Courts Don't Have a Role in Deciding Partisan Gerrymandering Claims.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 27 June 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-federal-courts-dont-have-a-role-in-deciding-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/2019/06/27/2fe82340-93ab-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html.

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Bars Challenges to Partisan Gerrymandering.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html.

Toobin, Jeffrey. “Our Broken Constitution.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 9 July 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution.