Great piece from Leah! I was not aware of this case. It’s absolutely another devastating example of how White Supremacy is the root problem for America. Nearly every issue we have can be traced back to it, and until we pull this root out for good, we will continue to all be negatively impacted.
Yes! The fact that they are allowed to accept money and gifts from people with business in front of the court is insane to me. This seems like blatant corruption. As a doctor I can’t accept any vendor gifts at my organization! The Supreme Court should be held to the same standard or higher given their influence on the law and our lives.
I love Strict Scrutiny! Nice to see Leah as a contributor here.
The fact that the reasoning behind the new districts is so inconsistent should flag something for SCOTUS…right? Right?? (Drawn for political party reasons and not racial discrimination reasons, I mean.)
It is unconscionable to me that anti discrimination laws can be at risk of being struck down AS DISCRIMINATORY. I hate that this is a thing. White people, can we please stop fighting the civil rights movement retroactively? Can we stop pushing back on the moral arc of the universe someday? Please?
Here is her suggestion on the gerrymandering topic: "Research suggests that the most fair way to draw voting districts is to create a citizens’ council made up of a broad cross section of people from all walks of life and political beliefs. This group will be the most motivated to create voting districts that are as fair as possible for the broadest number of people."
I've been talking with folks about a way to make something like this possible. The inherent problem here is the current system is that we ask politicians who won because of gerrymandered maps to vote themselves into harder elections. That's never gonna happen, right? Even when courts strike down the maps, politicians just wait until the court changes, and then they're right back to their old tricks. We also blame the Supreme Court for not interpreting our racist laws in an anti-racist way. It all seems so Sisyphean.
We have to remove politicians from the process entirely, not even letting them in the room. They have no insight here, only conflicts of interest. The people drawing the lines should be regular folks who have zero stake in who wins or loses. Maybe even people who live far away from the election being held?
If you're interested in a group that talks about this kind of stuff, pivoting from dread to focus on action, with no time commitment or expertise necessary, shoot me a message and let me know!
Timothy -- I think a viable question we have to ask ourselves is: Is it time to increase the number of representatives in the House? The number "435" was established as the permanent in 1929, when the U.S. population was 122M. That equates to approximately 1-rep. per 280K people. Today, the U.S. population is 332M. That's 1-rep. per 763K folks. Is it reasonable to think that one person can effectively represent a population that is inherently, and perpetually more diverse as time passes? It seems to me that if the number of reps in the House were increased to a point where each was representing 300-350K people, we might naturally solve some of the issues associated with gerrymandering. (???)
Can we at least take some strength from the fact that things are changing slowly but surely in spite of attempts to preserve a racial status quo that no longer exists?
First, the bad news (From Pew) -
Non-Hispanic White people make up a larger share of Congress than of the overall U.S. population (74% vs. 58%). This gap is about as wide as it was in 1981, when 94% of congressional lawmakers were White, compared with 80% of the U.S. population.
But a speck of good news (also from Pew): In the House, representation of some racial and ethnic groups is now on par with their share of the total U.S. population, while others continue to lag. For example, 14% of House members are Black, the same as the total share of Black Americans.
On the other hand, the share of Hispanic representatives in Congress is much lower than the Hispanic share of the U.S. population (11% vs. 20%). Asian Americans, meanwhile, account for 4% of House members and 6% of the national population.
And these gains have occurred despite racially drawn districts. We have a long way to go and SJC sure won’t help us get there, I’m betting, but maybe - just maybe - we’ll get there anyway.
I think the difficulty here is that states with the most (and most diverse) population aren’t given as many representatives in Congress as proportional to their population in comparison with states with fewer people. This problem is also exasperated in the senate with each state getting exactly 2 and electoral votes not proportionate.
Ah yes, "reverse racism" 🙄 im so fed up today I don't have the ability to compose something remotely intellectual. Why cant people just mind their business and fix themselves before screwing over whole other groups?
I truly wonder what would happen if the only criteria considered for district boundaries was population, and AI was used to determine the boundaries. What then would representation look like? Would it be "fair" from a perspective of race? I certainly don't pretend to have the answers--but something tells me it would be more fair than what is happening in state legislatures.
Could hypothetically we make it a mandate that all states have to register new federal election laws to the federal gov’t? Bc then they couldn’t say that they got mistreatment as all states would have to follow the law.
I’ve been waiting for my copy to come in to our local bookstore. I’m hoping to go to law school eventually with all this bs. Strict Scrutiny and Steve Vladeck have been so helpful.
Great piece from Leah! I was not aware of this case. It’s absolutely another devastating example of how White Supremacy is the root problem for America. Nearly every issue we have can be traced back to it, and until we pull this root out for good, we will continue to all be negatively impacted.
I’m heartbroken at the state of our democracy. The Supreme Court has already ruled that partisan gerrymandering is fine. I have no faith that they will uphold the hard won legislative victory of VRA. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court
SCOTUS is corrupt.
Yes! The fact that they are allowed to accept money and gifts from people with business in front of the court is insane to me. This seems like blatant corruption. As a doctor I can’t accept any vendor gifts at my organization! The Supreme Court should be held to the same standard or higher given their influence on the law and our lives.
I love Strict Scrutiny! Nice to see Leah as a contributor here.
The fact that the reasoning behind the new districts is so inconsistent should flag something for SCOTUS…right? Right?? (Drawn for political party reasons and not racial discrimination reasons, I mean.)
It is unconscionable to me that anti discrimination laws can be at risk of being struck down AS DISCRIMINATORY. I hate that this is a thing. White people, can we please stop fighting the civil rights movement retroactively? Can we stop pushing back on the moral arc of the universe someday? Please?
Back in July, Sharon wrote a piece called "My Proposal to Improve Elections in the United States" https://thepreamble.com/p/my-proposal-to-improve-elections
Here is her suggestion on the gerrymandering topic: "Research suggests that the most fair way to draw voting districts is to create a citizens’ council made up of a broad cross section of people from all walks of life and political beliefs. This group will be the most motivated to create voting districts that are as fair as possible for the broadest number of people."
I've been talking with folks about a way to make something like this possible. The inherent problem here is the current system is that we ask politicians who won because of gerrymandered maps to vote themselves into harder elections. That's never gonna happen, right? Even when courts strike down the maps, politicians just wait until the court changes, and then they're right back to their old tricks. We also blame the Supreme Court for not interpreting our racist laws in an anti-racist way. It all seems so Sisyphean.
We have to remove politicians from the process entirely, not even letting them in the room. They have no insight here, only conflicts of interest. The people drawing the lines should be regular folks who have zero stake in who wins or loses. Maybe even people who live far away from the election being held?
If you're interested in a group that talks about this kind of stuff, pivoting from dread to focus on action, with no time commitment or expertise necessary, shoot me a message and let me know!
Timothy -- I think a viable question we have to ask ourselves is: Is it time to increase the number of representatives in the House? The number "435" was established as the permanent in 1929, when the U.S. population was 122M. That equates to approximately 1-rep. per 280K people. Today, the U.S. population is 332M. That's 1-rep. per 763K folks. Is it reasonable to think that one person can effectively represent a population that is inherently, and perpetually more diverse as time passes? It seems to me that if the number of reps in the House were increased to a point where each was representing 300-350K people, we might naturally solve some of the issues associated with gerrymandering. (???)
Ohhhhhhhh wow. I had never considered that perspective before, thanks Todd! That makes too much sense. Add it to the to do list.
Can we at least take some strength from the fact that things are changing slowly but surely in spite of attempts to preserve a racial status quo that no longer exists?
First, the bad news (From Pew) -
Non-Hispanic White people make up a larger share of Congress than of the overall U.S. population (74% vs. 58%). This gap is about as wide as it was in 1981, when 94% of congressional lawmakers were White, compared with 80% of the U.S. population.
But a speck of good news (also from Pew): In the House, representation of some racial and ethnic groups is now on par with their share of the total U.S. population, while others continue to lag. For example, 14% of House members are Black, the same as the total share of Black Americans.
On the other hand, the share of Hispanic representatives in Congress is much lower than the Hispanic share of the U.S. population (11% vs. 20%). Asian Americans, meanwhile, account for 4% of House members and 6% of the national population.
And these gains have occurred despite racially drawn districts. We have a long way to go and SJC sure won’t help us get there, I’m betting, but maybe - just maybe - we’ll get there anyway.
I think the difficulty here is that states with the most (and most diverse) population aren’t given as many representatives in Congress as proportional to their population in comparison with states with fewer people. This problem is also exasperated in the senate with each state getting exactly 2 and electoral votes not proportionate.
Yes! And the Electoral College is outdated by 200 years!
Ah yes, "reverse racism" 🙄 im so fed up today I don't have the ability to compose something remotely intellectual. Why cant people just mind their business and fix themselves before screwing over whole other groups?
Couldn’t have said it better!
Todd, I was thinking the same thing.
And thank you for mentioning the population issue.
Also, when people compare representation, can we also include that a fair representation of women would be one-half? Thank you.
I truly wonder what would happen if the only criteria considered for district boundaries was population, and AI was used to determine the boundaries. What then would representation look like? Would it be "fair" from a perspective of race? I certainly don't pretend to have the answers--but something tells me it would be more fair than what is happening in state legislatures.
This makes me sick!
Fellow governerds, do you have any book / podcast / documentary recommendations for learning more on this? Thanks 😊
Could hypothetically we make it a mandate that all states have to register new federal election laws to the federal gov’t? Bc then they couldn’t say that they got mistreatment as all states would have to follow the law.
I’ve been waiting for my copy to come in to our local bookstore. I’m hoping to go to law school eventually with all this bs. Strict Scrutiny and Steve Vladeck have been so helpful.
Thank you for breaking this down Leah. I have the book Lawless and I cannot wait to read it .