(Photo by Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)
The Gerrymandering Debate
Drawing the Line on Redistricting

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on redistricting could draw the Court into a deep, dark political thicket—and expectations are all over the map.

Published on: January 17, 2018
Bruce E. Cain is a professor of political science at Stanford University and author of Democracy More or Less (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
show comments
  • Paul Lies

    Most state legislatures get to control redistricting. One of the reasons you want your party to win state races is for this very purpose. Of course, a pathetic party like the Democratic Party has been losing bigly at the state level for years. Naturally, the corrupt party and crybabies will continue to try and be corrupt.

    Democratic Party in a nutshell post-1992 “we are the party of the workers, the people, and jobs!” three seconds later “we want mass amnesty. we are the party of illegal labor and terrible trade deals and outsourcing!” = failure. That’s exactly what we’ve seen.

    • Suzy Dixon

      Right? Anyway, we can talk about gerrymandering when we clean up the voter rolls. Am I to believe the Democrats who don’t care about outsourcing jobs, don’t care about immigration laws, actually care about how distracting is done? Why? Why have any rules at all? Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  • QET

    “Isn’t there anyone who knows what politics is all about?”
    “Sure Charlie Brown, I can tell you what politics is all about.”

    “And lo! prior to 2004, Massachusetts, like most states, gave its governor the power to appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of a Senator’s term if the Senator died or resigned. But in 2004, Massachusetts had a Republican governor, and its junior Senator was on his way to receiving the Democratic nomination for President. Having just been re-elected in 2002, Massachusetts faced the prospect, should Kerry win the Presidency, of having a Republican Senator for 4 years. Incontheivable! So the Democrat-dominated legislature quickly changed things so that a Senator could be replaced only by a special election. But then came 2009 and Obamacare. Specifically, the GOP filibuster thereof which required 60 Senate votes to break. Ted Kennedy was, inconveniently, dying, and his death would deprive the Senate Democrats of that needed 60th vote. The Democrat-mandated special election would not be held in time to kill the GOP filibuster. Pain! Anguish! But wait: Massachusetts had a Democrat as governor again. Huzzah! Balance had been restored to the Force. Quickly the state legislature partially reversed its 2004 action and restored to the governor the right to appoint a replacement to serve until the special election could be held. (Of course, had they known that the approved Democrat candidate Martha Coakley would be so unbelievably incompetent as to lose to Republican Scott Brown, they surely would have done away with the special election nonsense altogether). Soon Paul Kirk arrived in Washington, bringing tidings of great joy and saying ‘Glory to Obamacare in the highest.’ ”

    “That’s what politics is all about, Charlie Brown.”

    • Otis

      Nicely done!

      • Jolene

        Get your sa-lary w-eekly wi-th Googl-e.Earn $97 ever-y hour wit-h Go-ogle..likewise, conti-nue with a f-iscally str-ong life…o-n Thu-rsday I b-ought a great n-ew Land R-over Defender af-ter I been earni-ng $20400 last four we-eks. i-t’s by-far my favo-urite work I h-ave ever ha-d .it l-ooks ni-cest-work however you won’t fo-rgive yours-elf if you don’t have a peek at this article.!iw14s:↠↠↠ http://GoogleOnlineSafeUpdateWorkFromHome/find/jobs ♥♥♥k♥♥♥x♥♥q♥♥t♥♥g♥♥♥t♥p♥♥t♥l♥♥♥h♥♥a♥♥♥u♥s♥♥q♥♥p♥x♥j♥a♥x♥x♥f♥g♥j♥♥♥g♥♥a:::::!te59k:lhu

  • FriendlyGoat

    Whatever Kennedy thinks is what you get.

  • Gary Hemminger

    The Democrats now are a more united front, believing for both principled and pragmatic reasons that partisan redistricting must be curbed.

    Give me a break! The democrats will change their position immediately upon coming to power. They, like the Republicans, are total hypocrites. Who have no principals and no pragmatism.

  • CapitalistRoader

    The Democrats now are a more united front, believing for both principled and pragmatic reasons that partisan redistricting must be curbed.

    Yep. Just like they were when they implemented the nuclear option.

    How’d that work out?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.