The 2010 redistricting cycle guaranteed Republican victories for the rest of the decade. The project, known as "Redmap", created a 33 seat margin in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 election. Recently, North Carolina Judges struck down district lines arguing that they heavily favored the Republican Party. Republican state senators won 49.5% of the popular vote but ended up with 29 of the 50 seats (or 58% of the seats) due to Republican majorities in most districts. The North Carolina state legislature was ordered to redraw its district maps, following a pattern of anti-gerrymandering laws and court decisions enacted throughout the decade. In 2012, for example, Obama won Florida by a narrow 0.9% yet Republicans won 17 of 27 congressional districts. Then in 2015 the Supreme Court ordered redistricting in Florida and now Democrats have 13 seats and Republicans 14 seats (much more consistent with Florida's purple color). However, the methods in which the government can regulate gerrymandering have been in debate for the past decade. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Arizona state legislature challenged a state constitutional amendment (enacted through a ballot initiative) that gave redistricting power to an independent commission. The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that an independent commission bypasses representation on the grounds that the amendment was enacted through a ballot initiative. Still, this was a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision and the case could potentially reopen. Recently, in June 2019, the supreme court ruled that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause. In essence, the ruling stated that federal courts are to remain neutral on partisan gerrymandering. However, if state governments continue to regulate gerrymandering, Republicans will find much more difficulty in gaining districts like they did in 2010.The cracks in the GOP’s gerrymandering firewall
1. Do you agree with the ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause? Should federal courts be able to regulate partisan gerrymandering?
2. Why do you think Republicans gained such an advantage in 2010? In other words, what political, economic or social conditions allowed for such large scale gerrymandering?
3. Which (types of) states are more likely to be victims of gerrymandering? Less likely?
2. The Republicans gained such an advantage in the 2010 elections because they had the financial backing, and the intelligence available through technological advances to zone in on seats that were winnable. Even though they didn't win that much of the popular vote, they won a large margin of seats. They didn't have a huge political advantage, but there was some backlash to Obama's policies, specifically the Affordable Care Act.
ReplyDelete1) Rucho v Common Clause claimed that the federal government should not intervene in gerrymandering because many state legislatures were involving themselves in this topic. They believed that since state legislatures were making change they would let them do it themselves, but I don't believe that all states will follow the lead. I believe that gerrymandering is against our democratic values and therefore should not only be intervened by the Supreme Court if race related, but for any gerrymandering that could take away from the voice of the people.
ReplyDeleteMonique
Delete2) In 2010, the U.S. had just emerged from the Great Recession of 2008, and frustrated by the still-weak economy, many Americans sought to vote out incumbent Democrats. To make matters worse for the Democrats, claims of Obamacare "death claims" infuriated many Americans and galvanized them against the party. In the midst of this backlash against the Democrats, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that the ban on independent political expenditures by corporations was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, so Republican super PACs and tax-exempt nonprofit political groups were able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the 2010 campaign.
ReplyDelete- Danielle J.
Delete1. I agree with the Rucho v. Common Cause ruling. The federal government has the responsibility to ensure individual rights. When state legislatures gerrymander, this interferes with the representation of individuals. A republic can only be successful if the people are represented accurately in the government, and a federalist government can only be successful if federal/state governments keep each other in check.
ReplyDeleteI think that the whole idea of gerrymandering is considered unfair. So I disagree with the Rucho v. Common Cause ruling and think that the federal courts should be involved in how the states separate counties in terms of reapportionment. If the federal government does not interfere then there will be way in controlling these unfair procedures.
ReplyDelete1. I disagree with the Rucho v. Common Cause ruling because I believe that democracy and the right to fair voting should be held as a priority. The United States was built off of the idea of democracy, and we should be acting to protect people's right to a participate politically in an equal way. I think the Court should intervene in this case to ensure fair practices and prevent corruption in the political process. Federal courts should be able to regulate partisan gerrymandering and keep districts from being absurdly mutated to fit the best interest of a particular party.
ReplyDelete1. I disagree with the Rucho v. Common Cause ruling which says that the federal government should not intervene in gerrymandering and instead, let the states regulate gerrymandering. The federal government should step in to protect individuals' rights and our country's democratic values. The federal courts should be able to regulate partisan gerrymandering because their job is to protect the people's rights and gerrymandering interferes with that.
ReplyDelete3. As we have learned in class every part of the country has been guilty of gerrymandering - some more than others though. The states that seem to be most likely to be gerrymandered are swing states. Because the states matter more in presidential elections than others, it makes sense that political parties who have won the state would set up the liens to favor them for as long as possible. I think this partially explains why states like California are seen as less pervasive in the use of gerrymandering compared to the battleground states like North Carolina. North Carolina recently got into hot water for their excessive use of gerrymandering. It will be interesting to see how the caucus in 2020 will affect the coming elections of the upcoming decade.
ReplyDelete#2 The Republican landslide in 2010 can be attributed to a variety factors including the fact that it was a midterm and that Republican strategists had leveraged the use of advanced informational technology to determine the most effective election strategies. This period was also defined by a rise in anti-government Tea Party sentiment, contributing to this significant defeat for the Democrats. The ramifications the 2010 elections had for the rest of the decade demonstrate just how important 2020 will be in determining which party can establish a deep-rooted advantage for the next decade.
ReplyDelete3. States that have larger minority populations that live together in compact areas are more likely to be victims of gerrymandering because these minorities would likely vote for Democrats, and Republicans would want to draw district lines in a way that allows them to win despite the minority population. States that are not as diverse and clearly always vote for one party are less likely to be victims of gerrymandering because if this is the case, it is very unlikely that redistricting will lead to a different outcome in an election.
ReplyDelete1. I do not agree with the ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause because I believe that a regulation of gerrymandering needs to be enforced on a federal level for it to be effective. Although some states are starting to regulate gerrymandering more, I believe that many of the same states who have gerrymandered in the past will continue to not regulate it. Gerrymandering is unfair because it hurts the effectiveness of the popular vote and because it hurts representation of certain groups, especially minorities. With such an important issue and so much gerrymandering in the past, I do not believe it should be up to individual states to regulate it.
ReplyDelete3) Swing states are more likely to be victims of gerrymandering. This is because the diverse voter bases are split into groups that will help the political party that draws the lines. States that have been controlled by one state for a long time are also likely to be gerrymandered.
ReplyDelete