We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in an upcoming gerrymandering case comes down on the side of democracy.

The Supreme Court this fall will take up the issue of political parties manipulating state voting maps to gain advantage in Congress and statehouses. The case could affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans across the United States — assuming this conservative-leaning court is willing to rein in blatant redrawing of voting districts by a dominant party to boost its success in elections.

At issue in the underlying case is whether Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin drew legislative districts that favored their party — districts that were so out of whack with the state’s political makeup that they violated the constitutional rights of Democratic voters. A lower court struck down the districts as unconstitutional last year.

Democrats hope a favorable decision will help them cut into Republican electoral majorities in several states where they feel voting districts have been skewed to favor the GOP. Election law experts say the Wisconsin case is the best chance yet for the high court to put limits on what lawmakers may do to gain a partisan advantage in creating political district maps, although past justices have not been particularly aggressive about policing gerrymandering.

Redistricting is controlled by state legislatures, which gives the dominant party the ability to adjust voting districts. While some states delegate the work to independent commissions, many do not.

Both parties have tried to get the largest partisan edge when they control redistricting. Yet, Democrats are more supportive of having courts rein in extreme districting plans, mainly because Republicans control more legislatures and drew districts after the 2010 census that enhanced their advantage in those states and in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because they were unfairly partisan. But lawsuits like Wisconsin’s are pending in Maryland, where Democrats dominate, and North Carolina, where Republicans have a huge edge in the congressional delegation and the state legislature.

Political leaders are watching to see if the court will accept a new standard and block partisan gerrymandering that Wisconsin Democrats say leads to ever-increasing polarization in American politics because so few districts are genuinely competitive between the parties. In these safe seats, incumbents tend to be more concerned about primary challengers, so they try to appeal mostly to their party’s base and have little incentive to compromise with the opposing party.

Everyone seems to agree that our country and our government have become increasingly polarized, creating dysfunction in Washington and ugly intolerance among uncompromising partisans. There may be many other reasons for this, not excluding the tone set by our presidential candidates and our sitting president and congressional leaders, but gerrymandering contributes to disenfranchisement and polarization on both sides.

Wisconsin Republicans drew their maps in 2011 after they took full control of state government in the 2010 elections. Under those maps in 2012, Republicans captured 61 percent of state assembly seats while winning only 48.6 percent of the statewide vote. Wisconsin’s attorney general has defended his state’s redistricting process as “entirely lawful,” but that doesn’t make it right or good for the country.

The lower court that struck down the Wisconsin districts adopted an equation that offers a way to measure the degree to which the Republicans stacked the deck in their favor. This formula shows how Republicans increased the number of legislative seats they control by stuffing Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. That’s why some of those districts look like Rorschach tests — not anything a sensible, non-partisan person would draw.

The formula could appeal to Supreme Court swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has said he is willing to referee claims of excessively partisan redistricting, but only if the court can find a workable way to do so. Until now, he hasn’t found one.

We believe in fair fights, moderation and compromise in our government, not in the sorts of decision-making that comes from stacked deck voting districts, which lead to, dare we say, rigged elections.

]]>