The Supreme Court’s Recent Gerrymandering Rulings Indicate Drastic Need for the Democracy Decree

In late May, the Supreme Court heard a case from South Carolina in which several civil rights groups argued that congressional districts were drawn in a manner that suppressed the Black vote. The plaintiffs contended that the Republican-controlled legislature’s decision to move 30,000 Black residents in Charleston County out of District One into District Six, an already Democratic district, was unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The lower court agreed, ruling that the district had discriminated against Black voters. However, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence to show that district lines were redrawn predominantly based on race. Earlier, in 2019, the Court had already established in Rucho v Common Cause that matters of partisan gerrymandering were out of its hands. Since Black voters tend to vote Democratic, the redrawn lines in South Carolina, according to the State, were simply a result of Republican legislators’ effort to create districts that favored their party. The majority agreed, ruling, in an opinion by Justice Alito, that the “circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.” The Court thus effectively upheld racial gerrymandering based on the perverse logic that its purpose might have been mainly partisan, and it has a much greater impact than simply on the residents of South Carolina. The Supreme Court has established a precedent that makes it nearly impossible to challenge congressional redistricting on the basis of racial gerrymandering.

Unfortunately, we very quickly saw the consequences of this ruling last Monday; within less than two weeks, the precedent that the Supreme Court established had been applied. Plaintiffs in Arkansas had filed suit against the state, arguing that Republican legislators split a group of 140,000 Black voters in the 2nd Congressional District into three different districts, thus diluting their vote and making it difficult for Black voters to elect a candidate of their choosing. A three-judge panel dismissed the case, leading several residents to appeal their decision to the Supreme Court. The appeal remained pending while the Supreme Court reviewed the South Carolina case. Finally, on Monday, the Court sent the Arkansas case back to the lower court, ordering a review in light of the new South Carolina ruling.

Thanks to our Supreme Court––of which three of the six justices in the 6-3 right-wing majority were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote––it is now a simple matter for legislators to dilute minority votes under the guise of trying to serve the interest of their party. The South Carolina ruling allows race to be used as a means to achieve the partisan end despite race itself being a protected category under the Constitution.

This situation highlights the need to abolish the Electoral College and establish proportional representation in Congress. Had the Electoral College been dismantled and the president who won the popular vote appointed these justices, it is likely that the Court would have ruled the other way entirely. Beyond this, these rulings show why it is imperative that we establish proportional representation in Congress. Gerrymandering is a symptom of an entirely winner-takes-all system. If we had proportional representation in Congress, partisan gerrymandering would be impossible, as every single vote would be counted into the popular vote––and if partisan gerrymandering were impossible, states would not be able to use it to justify racial gerrymandering. If states were diluting minority votes, they would no longer have the excuse of trying to protect or expand their party’s advantage, and it would be visibly unconstitutional.

State politicians should not be allowed to suppress our voices––and our government should be entirely reflective of the population’s values.