Gerrymandering and its effect in our Courts

Our Government was set us to include three branches of Government set up by the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. The Judicial Branch was put in place to resolve disputes. However, the members of the courts are not elected by the people, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Judicial Branch acts as a check on the other two branches and is pertinent to the function of the government from the eyes of the Founding Fathers. However, there are some flaws like anything that need to be addressed like the effect that gerrymandering has in our political system. According to CNN, gerrymandering is “where politicians essentially choose their constituents by manipulating the electoral maps.” Reading this has brought up some key questions, do we really want the government controlling its constituents in order to control who is office and inevitably controlling our whole government. This is putting too much power in the elected officials which will then control who is appointed to the Supreme Court. This is why it needs to be addressed in order to avoid the issues that this idea is creating.

According to CNN, “A recent study from the Brennan Center found that gerrymandering has resulted in 16 or 17 additional Republican seats in Congress, or about two-thirds of the 24 seats Democrats would need to take over the House.” This is having a major impact on the functions of our government and needs to be addressed. The Supreme Court needs to strike gerrymandering down in order to preserve the Founding Fathers goals for their system of government. One of the major court cases the Supreme Court is dealing with now is over the gerrymandering that occurred in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has to decide whether or not they will keep allowing politicians to redraw district lines in order for their party to win the elections. If they do not strike down gerrymandering, they will be allowing politicians to control the political agenda by sustaining their dominance in government.

This is an issue that we need to fix, gerrymandering is not a good thing and should never be allowed. The Supreme Courts decision will affect the government for years to come. They need to stop gerrymandering in order to keep control based in our government and the three branches instead of in the hands of politicians. The Founding Fathers goal was not to have the whole fate of our government to be placed in the hands of politicians. We need to get back to what the Founding Fathers set out in the Constitution. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional and needs to be controlled. If not, our governmental system will be greatly affected. According to CNN, “election rules should be impartial. They should allow policy and ideas — not the rules of the election itself — to win out in a political campaign. The court’s decision in this case will determine whether that ideal becomes a reality.” We do not want this to become a reality, the Supreme Court needs to ensure this does not happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/opinions/wisconsin-gerrymandering-scotus-douglas-opinion/index.html

Christopher Barry says:

December 5, 2017 at 1:53 am

The effect of gerrymandering on our democracy, ranging from increased polarization and decreased competitive elections to lower quality representation and lack of responsiveness, is clearly detrimental. Gerrymandering clearly violates the values set forth in the Constitution. However, the main challenged presented in the most recent gerrymandering case is determining who has jurisdiction and policing powers in determining gerrymandering and when it becomes a problem due to partisanship. Especially in a Court with a conservative leaning that believe in a smaller, less intrusive government, the case is not as clear cut as it may seem.
However, despite all the uncertainties due to partisanship and jurisdiction, a beauty and a paradox are found within the foundation and system of the Supreme Court. Due to the lifelong appointment, Justices are (supposed to be) above the political fray and bitter partisanship. While their interpretations fall on the liberal to conservative political ideology spectrum, usually due to the President they are appointed under, Justices decide how best the laws uphold both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Indirectly, the Courts are representative of how American interpret the Constitution since the people select the President that nominated Justices. According to a Pew Research Survey, Supreme Court appointments were one of the “very important” issues for Americans during the 2016 presidential election. This demonstrates that even American citizens recognize it and its ramifications. There is still some link to the people. However, the paradox is that the selection and appointment of Justices can become a very partisan issue as demonstrated by the most recent Supreme Court appointment. Having all Justices on the bench is imperative for the Supreme Court and judicial branch to work as it is supposed to work. Being held back because partisan fighting and the people not having an direct say on cases and how Justices interpret the Constitution (even though it was done as a way to protect people and preserve justice from the people) seems to be against the very ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ the Court is bound to review, follow, and ultimately protect.

Christopher Barry says:

December 5, 2017 at 1:54 am

Work Referenced:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/us/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymander.html
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Kendall Crispin says:

December 5, 2017 at 5:32 pm

I agree with you that politicians should not have all of the power and that is the true goal of the Supreme Court, but it is important that we note that many people think the court’s involvement in politics can tend to be overstepped. This was also shown in the court’s involvement in Bush v. Gore. They decided that Bush would end up winning, and helping uphold the constitution. This is an example of something that truly proves the importance of checks and balances. It is interesting that you mention the founders, because they really didn’t mention much about the Supreme Court in the constitution except that they must serve life terms and gives power of election to congress. They all had different opinions on how strong the reign could be, but it was ultimately decided by the lead of Alexander Hamilton that it should ensure the limits in the United States government. As we learned last unit, and as you mentioned Gerrymandering is not good, so it is important the the Supreme Court continues to have the power to stop this and maladies of other politicians.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949

Lauren Rothenberg says:

December 8, 2017 at 11:44 am

I do agree with you that gerrymandering poses serious risks to the functionality of our democracy, especially from the perspective of the Founding Fathers. For a nation built on a system of checks and balances to minimize various external influences and tyranny, not enough attention seems to be attributed to gerrymandering and its consequences. Having said this, while redistricting gives more power to candidates, I do not necessarily believe this directly limits that of the other branches of government.