In a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their view that it is too much work to try to make sure American elections are fair and therefore threw out a Pennsylvania case challenging gerrymandered districts that disenfranchised Democrats. The net effect of Wednesday's ruling was to say that representational democracy is not necessary if it's too much work.
The ruling reaffirms the Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000 in Bush v. Gore that there wasn't enough time to make sure votes in Florida were counted correctly in the presidential election so the partial count provided by the state of Florida showing Bush ahead was good enough.
The Gang of Three (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas) joined with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to reject Vieth v. Jubelirer. The Gang of Three plus O'Connor also wanted to overturn a 1986 decision, Davis v. Bandemer, under which "the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause also grants judges the power - and duty - to control that practice." But by a one vote margin (Justice Kennedy showing a slight interest in preserving democracy) declined to completely rule out all future challenges to gerrymandering. The foursome apparently believes that the practice of "to the victors go the spoils" was just fine in relation to American democracy.
Their actual statement was that they "concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist." Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said, while admitting he could not define hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." Gerrymandered districts are the same way, maybe you can't define it but you can sure see one, if you try.
One district in Pennsylvania under contention winds through the Philadelphia area and is only about 300 yards wide in places, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But in their ruling the Supreme Court said to fix that would be too much work for judges. Well if judges are busy maybe they could ask for some help from elementary school students as even they could figure out this is a gerrymandered district.
Perhaps judges are too busy. During the 1990s the Republicans sat on judicial appoints, building up case loads. Today Democrats are loathe to confirm judicial appointments made by an unelected president, who by chance was elevated to the White House by a 5-4 vote by the same group that doesn't believe in democracy.
The Pennsylvania case came about following the 2000 census which reduced the size of the state's congressional delegation by two members, and the Republican-controlled state legislature drew new boundaries that favored GOP candidates. Republicans increased their majority on the state's House delegation from 11-10 to 12-7, even though the number of registered voters in Pennsylvania is almost evenly divided between the two parties. In Texas, Rep. Tom DeLay goaded the state legislature to redistrict to make the split in representation more reflective of the vote. In Pennsylvania the opposite occurred (moving away from representation reflected in the delegation) yet, surprise, surprise, the GOP again benefited.
While American lives are being lost overseas in a supposed effort to promote democracy, efforts by the ruling party in America are having the opposite effect. Democracy, with the approval of the President, Congress and Courts, is starting to die. Whether the public chooses to resuscitate it will be determined later this year. But Congress, with the Courts approval, may have altered the rules to prevent any such resuscitation.
