Skip to content
Subscribe

Disappointing, But Not Unexpected: Court Leaves Gerrymandering Reform to States; So Let’s Get to Work

Published:

The Supreme Court’s decision to punt on partisan gerrymandering (RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL.) was discouraging for many in the electoral reform movement, but really should not have come as a surprise. The recent Court has given broad latitude to the Constitution’s granting to state legislatures control of state election law. And with this ruling, the Court made clear that the majority believes partisan gerrymandering - no matter how exclusionary, unfair, or anti-democratic - is a political problem, not a judicial matter.

Many will bemoan and criticize the Court’s ruling that sends consideration of reforming partisan gerrymandering back to the states. But in many ways we should consider this ruling an opportunity for action. Instead of throwing our hands up in despair, we should heed this clarion call for taking up the challenge of enacting electoral reform in every state that will put people ahead of parties. Instead of a lost cause, we have been given an opportunity to build a movement of like-minded reformers capable of challenging the dysfunctional two-party duopoly status quo.  

Given the realities of today’s “party first” warfare, we cannot rely on state legislatures or either major party to work reliably and effectively to remedy the situation (it’s why reformers took to the courts when their legislators wouldn’t listen). But, now that it’s clear action on gerrymandering will be in the state legislatures and not in the courts, reformers can rally to build a state-by-state response to counter the duopoly’s best efforts to block reform.

And there’s proof that this state-by-state approach can work based on overwhelming voter support in 2016 for initiatives and referenda for independent redistricting commissions to replace partisan-drawn legislative lines, including successful efforts in Colorado, Michigan, Ohio and Missouri.

Just as every state has its unique electoral peculiarities, an effective reform movement’s response in demanding gerrymander reform will take on a unique, state-by-state approach:

  • In the 26 states where voter action through legislative referenda or citizen led initiatives for amendments to their state constitutions is possible, those avenues should be aggressively pursued through grassroots organization, signature gathering and people-powered campaigns.
  • In the 24 states where direct citizen action is not possible and where independent commissions do not already exist, reform energy can be focused on both electing reform-minded legislators committed to ending partisan gerrymandering AND on channelling voter demands on current partisan legislators to put their constituents’ needs ahead of their party’s interests.

And reformers shouldn’t limit focus to just gerrymander fixes as there are a wide variety of necessary electoral fixes that can inject greater competition, accessibility, transparency and participation into our elections that will lead to better, more responsive leaders who will put voters’ interests ahead of their party’s. Other reforms we should consider include opening publicly funded primaries to every voter regardless of their affiliation or nonaffiliation, and ranked choice voting that encourages more viable choices in elections and demands successful candidates appeal to a broader constituency than just their partisan base.

Partisan gerrymandering is just one symptom of a larger “party first, voters second” disease that has infected our entire system and made lasting, effective solutions of the nation’s significant policy challenges mostly impossible. While we should continue to aggressively push for gerrymander reform, we believe the cure for that disease is not just one time fixes or one-off reforms but the election of a whole new generation of leaders committed to extensive democracy reform and a governing philosophy that puts people and solutions before party and partisan advantage.

Americans agree on much more than we disagree - but the dysfunctional partisan duopoly is more focused on seeking partisan advantage instead of solving problems. We believe citizens are ready for a vibrant, new, postpartisan way of leadership that reforms our elections to put voters’ interests ahead of partisanship.  We can start by ending the duopoly’s self-interested gerrymandering across America and place voters’ interests ahead of the party’s interests.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Volpe is Chairman of the SAM Party of New York and ran for New York Lieutenant Governor in 2016 as a SAM candidate. Oz Griebel is Executive Director of the SAM Task Force in Connecticut and ran for Connecticut Governor in 2016 as an independent. Learn more at JoinSAM.org

‍

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Disappointing, But Not Unexpected: Court Leaves Gerrymandering Reform to States; So Let’s Get to Work

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us