Enough is Enough - Advancement Project - Advancement Project

Enough is Enough

If enough is enough, how much is too much?

The Supreme Court refused to answer that question on June 27 in the partisan gerrymandering cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

Partisan gerrymandering is when public officials, often lawmakers, intentionally draw electoral districts to favor their party and/or political interests. The practice often results in one party holding a disproportionate number of seats in a state legislature, and dilutes the power and voice of voters based on their race or political affiliation.

The two partisan gerrymandering cases asked the Court to provide guidelines on when enough is enough regarding using partisanship as the primary reason for drafting districts. The Court not only refused to provide limits, it essentially gave elected officials the ability to carve districts any way they choose in the name of partisanship. In the past, the court has issued opinions on when the use of race in gerrymandering rises to a constitutionally inappropriate level, but apparently no such limit exists when it comes to partisanship.

Enough is indeed enough.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, Republicans drafted a gerrymandered redistricting plan in North Carolina.  In Lamone v. Benisek, Democrats drew a gerrymandered plan in Maryland. In both cases, the drafters explicitly stated that they intended to draw a plan that advantaged their political party.

The Court, however, found that notwithstanding these proclamations, this was not enough to enter into the “political thicket” of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”

Justice Elana Kagan expressed her discontent with the ruling, “gerrymandering is, as so many Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the most profound sense. Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”

With that statement, partisan gerrymandering claims are now in the hands of each individual state. A push for redistricting reform must now focus on the state courts and state legislatures to provide safeguards for partisan overreach. This reliance on the states raises the stakes for the 2020 election.

The partisan gerrymandering ruling provides a clear focus on legislative and congressional elections in 2020. Here’s how: persons elected in the 2020 cycle will draw the districts for elections held over the next decade. In 2021 after states receive the Census count for their states, counties, cities, school boards and other jurisdictions, the redistricting process begins. This time, it will occur without the federal oversight that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provided and with those elected officials understanding that the federal courts will not review their “undemocratic” efforts to game the system in a way that provides an unrealistic advantage to the elected political party. This makes the election in 2020 extremely important – not just for the Presidential Election, but for democracy.

Enough is enough.

Gilda R. Daniels is the Litigation Director for Advancement Project National Office

KEEP READING

Hearing in Lawsuit Challenging Georgia Anti-Voting Rights Law Weighs Impact of Line Relief Restrictions

GEORGIA —  The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia will be hearing motions for a preliminary injunction in the consolidated litigation challenging SB 202 (In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202). This hearing will consider the “line relief” provision that criminalizes those who provide voters waiting in line with food and water, which disproportionately impacts communities of color in Georgia who face some of the longest waiting times at the ballot box in the country.  SB 202 creates significant barriers for Black, Latinx and other voters of color…

Read More
Advancement Project National Office Condemns New Anti-Voting Rights Law in Florida that Creates Office of Election Crimes, Mandates Special Voter-Fraud Police Officers

FLORIDA – Moments ago, Governor DeSantis signed into law a bill passed by the Republican Florida legislature that claims to fight “voter fraud” by creating an Office of Election Crimes and mandating the appointment of “special” members of law enforcement.  This comes on the heels of the conclusion of a trial challenging SB 90, another anti-voting rights measure in Florida. This law was successfully challenged in court by several national and Florida civil rights and voting rights groups, including Advancement Project. Similar anti-voting rights bills…

Read More
Civil Rights Organizations Celebrate Decision in Florida Voting Rights Trial

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker released a landmark decision today in the nationally-watched voting rights trial on Florida’s SB 90 bill to strike down key provisions of the law. This restrictive voting law passed by the Republican-majority legislature and Gov. DeSantis  would have put in place new constraints on the use of drop boxes and organizations conducting voter registration drives, among other measures that would significantly hinder access to the vote for millions of state residents.

Read More
Trial Challenging Florida’s SB 90 Voter Suppression Law Begins Today

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. —  A trial challenging SB 90 (League of Women Voters v Lee), a Florida measure to make it harder and in many ways impossible for Black and Brown people to vote, kicked off on Monday, Jan. 31. This is one of the first trials of the year challenging anti-voting laws at the state level. It comes just as national voting rights efforts have stalled, with the Senate recently failing to change rules on the filibuster to pass voting rights.  SB 90 was passed by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis in spring…

Read More
Advancement Project National Office Statement on the Senate’s Failure to Pass Voting Rights Legislation

WASHINGTON — Last night, the Senate blocked the Freedom to Vote John R. Lewis Act from advancing to a final passage vote. In response to this, Judith Browne Dianis, Executive Director of the Advancement Project National Office released this statement: “Last night, all 50 Senate Republicans and two Senate Democrats voted to maintain the filibuster and block the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act from advancing to a final vote. These bills would protect voters and undo many of the barriers and restrictions that bar thousands of Black, Latinx, Asian, and…

Read More
Advancement Project National Office: “Passing voting rights legislation will protect right to free, fair, and accessible elections”

Washington, DC — In response to President Biden’s speech in Georgia today on voting rights legislation and the filibuster, Judith Browne Dianis, Executive Director of Advancement Project National Office, issued this statement: “While President Biden’s speech in Georgia today rings the alarm on voting rights, we need to put out the fire by immediately changing Senate rules on the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation.  “The urgency of this moment cannot be understated. Black voters and other voters of color need concrete action on voting rights immediately. Over 400 state-level bills undermining the right to vote were introduced last…

Read More
Advancement Project National Office Applauds the Passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

CONTACT Jeralyn Cave [email protected] 202-921-7321 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The legislation restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and helps prevent racial discrimination in voting by requiring states to obtain federal approval before enacting specific types of voting changes known to be racially discriminatory. The legislation also restores voters’ ability to challenge racial discrimination in court. Advancement Project National Office, a national racial justice and civil rights organization, released the following statement: “We applaud the efforts of the U.S.

Read More
Congress Must Combat New Wave of Voter Suppression, Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

On Monday, the U.S. House Judiciary hosted a hearing on H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA), discussing the need to restore federal oversight of elections in the wake of a new wave of voter suppression sweeping the nation.

Read More
Advancement Project National Office Statement on Brnovich v. DNC Supreme Court Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act in its ruling in Brnovich v. DNC, a case challenging voting laws in Arizona that discard provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct and limit who can return absentee ballots. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Arizona's voting laws do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and its ban on ballot harvesting was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. Advancement Project National Office, a 21st century racial justice organization release the following statement.

Read More
Our Democracy is in Danger, But You Can Help Save It

By Jenna Israel, Communications Intern As a young person, it often feels like there’s not a lot you can do to change a world that seems like it’s not listening to you. But for me, helping other people vote, engage their government, and make their voices heard is my activity of choice during my free time. It is empowering. One of the most heartbreaking things to hear when speaking to people in my community is that someone won’t vote. Sometimes it’s because they can’t. Maybe they’ve lost their right to vote as the result of incarceration. Or maybe they can’t…

Read More