Redistricting is among the most contentious elements of the American governance system. Its critics argue that it places too much power in the hands of partisan politicians. Additionally, there are those who argue that redistricting erodes American democracy. Despite the criticism that it faces, redistricting remains part of the country’s approach to governance. To understand how redistricting continues to divide opinion, one needs to examine its standing in law. This examination reveals that while it is technically legal, there are some laws such as the Voting Rights Act that redistricting violates. To ensure that it actually promotes democracy, redistricting may need to be expanded to allow for the participation of the federal judicial system.
Redistricting and the Law
An argument can be made that despite being controversial, redistricting is not illegal. This argument can be defended by citing constitutional provisions. For example, Section 2 of the first article of the US constitution provides for equal representation. In essence the constitution mandates that no effort should be spared in ensuring that each American enjoys fair and equal representation in government (Brunell, 2010). Ideally, the purpose of redistricting is to facilitate fairness in governance and representation. Therefore, redistricting is legal. The US Supreme Court has also established the legality of redistricting. For example, in Reynolds v Sims, the court upheld the equal representation provision of the constitution. Texas has also witnessed cases in which courts have reaffirmed redistricting as a legal process. For example, in Abbott v. Perez, the state’s Supreme Court dismissed claims that the redrawn districts were inspired by discriminatory motives. Since federal law recognizes redistricting and the top courts in the country and Texas have endorsed redistricting as an integral component of safeguarding equal representation, the argument that redistricting is legal is indeed solid.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
When viewed through the lens of such laws as the Voting Rights Act, voting seems illegal. The main aim of this act was to eliminate discriminatory practices that had prevented minorities from participating in elections (Forgette & Winkle, 2006). In essence, through the Voting Rights Act, the US hoped to make electoral processes fairer and more representative. In states like Texas, concerns have been raised that redistricting violates the spirit and provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Until recently, the state endured years of federal scrutiny and control, particularly in the voting laws that it adopted (Ura, 2019). It is indeed true that thanks to the redistricting laws that Texas adopted, minorities such as African Americans were denied the constitutionally-guaranteed right of equal representation (Ura, 2019). Therefore, since it disenfranchises some groups of voters thereby running afoul of the Voting Rights Act, redistricting appears illegal.
Need for Federal Judiciary Involvement
There have been instances where the federal government has intervened to prevent the enactment of laws and policies that would turn electoral processes into partisan exercises. These instances underscore the need for the federal judiciary to keep off state affairs. The US constitution protects the autonomy of states and bars the federal government from interfering in state affairs. By becoming involved in redistricting laws and process, the federal judiciary would essentially be violating state autonomy. In fact, in a recent ruling, the US Supreme Court confirmed that the federal government of which the federal judiciary is part, lacks the authority to regulate or oversee how states conduct redistricting (“Supreme Court: Federal”, 2009). Given that the federal government lacks the authority to meddle in the affairs of states, the question of how equality in representation can be guaranteed. A proposal is hereby issued that states should leave it to their people to determine their electoral maps. For example, before redrawing their maps, state governments could hold referenda through which they obtain approval from the electorate to proceed with the redistricting. This proposal promises to fix the problems that have arisen from gerrymandering and make American state elections fairer.
In closing, the US serves as a model for democratic governance. However, there are some issues which raise questions about the nation’s commitment to democracy. Redistricting is among these issues. It is a widely practiced process that has caused divisions and sparked controversy. While it appears legal, redistricting has an adverse effect on minority voters whose rights are violated. Federal courts could attempt to make electoral processes fair by overseeing redistricting. However, this would also violate the US constitution which protects state autonomy. The most promising solution lies in allowing citizens to play a more central role in shaping electoral maps.
References
Brunell, T. (2010). Redistricting and representation: why competitive elections are bad for America. London: Routledge.
Forgette, R., & Winkle, J. W. (2006). Partisan gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act. Social Science Quarterly, 87 (1), 155-73.
Supreme Court: federal judges cannot block gerrymandering. (2019). BBC. Retrieved September 28, 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48789838
Ura, A. (2019). How a decade of voting rights fights led to fewer redistricting safeguards for Texas voters of color. Texas Tribune. Retrieved September 28, 2019 from https://www.texastribune.org/2019/09/10/texas-enters-2021-redistricting-fewer-safeguards-voters-color/
