Protecting Pennsylvania from Hypergerrymandering

by Matt Thornburg

The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais--a case that aims to overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which protects racial minority voting power by mandating the creating of majority-minority districts. Careful observers of the Court indicate the 6-3 conservative majority will probably overturn Thornburg v. Gingles, the landmark case that established this important tool for minority representation. This decision would be foolish and dangerous to democracy in an era of increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering techniques.

American jurisprudence regarding redistricting and gerrymandering is voluminous, convoluted, and contradictory. The Supreme Court of the US has abdicated any judicial responsibility for partisan or--likely--racial bias in gerrymandering. It is a frustrating and sad state of affairs. However, in some states, including Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has waded into the argument. In Pennsylvania in 2018, the Court ruled in League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the current districts violated the state's constitution and its guarantee of free and equal elections.

While the districts the court mandated plan approved are far from perfect, they represent a substantial step in the right direction, moving Pennsylvania against the larger national current of hypergerrymandering and unfairness. Three of the four justices in the majority on that case are currently in a judicial retention election facing a major dark money effort to roll them back. Because gerrymandering so often plays out in the courts, ordinary voters are often frustrated and powerless to its effects. However, I encourage you to vote to retain the current justices--Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht--and preserve Pennsylvania from hypergerrymandering.