The Supreme Court upheld a pro-Republican South Carolina congressional map Thursday, rejecting the argument raised by civil rights groups that lawmakers impermissibly used race as a proxy to bolster the GOP’s chances.
But the high court also said that the civil rights groups that challenged the maps could continue to pursue one part of their claim, a move that will likely delay the battle over the districts for months.
With state election deadlines approaching, a federal court in March had already ruled that South Carolina could use the contested map in this year’s election.
The decision was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines.
The crux of this issue (and the Supreme Court identified this while more liberal leaning) is that it’s really fucking hard to measure gerrymandering-ness this is a pretty rational question to ask (though we should be bopping obviously gerrymandered districts down in the meantime). There’s no obvious natural way to divide a state into districts and while we do have measures we can use to highlight voter disenfranchisement I think it’s arguable that the closest we can get to a natural district map isn’t really optimized for enfranchisement either. We tend to want districts to compose entire regions (i.e. the Philadelphia metro area) even though those regions introduce disenfranchisement due to previous redlining and other racist policies.
This problem is pretty hard to solve in an unimpeachable manner.
Yup, for anyone who hasn’t heard it, I’d highly recommend people listen to FiveThirtyEight’s Gerrymandering Project. While this isn’t to say that gerrymandering isn’t a problem, it’s not as simple as many people make it out to be. Especially with the high level of self-sorting which has been going on, packing lots of Democratic votes in a single district tends to happen, even without trying.
That’s true, but no matter the outcome, the total district representation should not deviate far from the state party distribution, as it does in this case.