Did district lines rig Wisconsin elections? Supreme Court case could reshape politics


JUDY WOODRUFF: But first: The U.S. Supreme
Court began its new term this week with a full bench of nine justices and a jam-packed
docket. Today’s case, on partisan gerrymandering,
has the potential to reshape American politics as we know it. Our regular Supreme Court watcher, Marcia
Coyle, will join Lisa Desjardins to break down the arguments. The case centers on a redistricting map in
Wisconsin. And that’s where special correspondent Jeff
Greenfield begins. BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United
States: Hello, Wisconsin! (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JEFF GREENFIELD: The 2012 elections brought
good news to Wisconsin Democrats. President Obama carried the state for a second
time, and the party won 174,000 more votes for the state assembly than Republicans. But that didn’t mean Democrats would control
the state assembly. In fact, Republicans wound up with 60 of the
99 seats, some 61 percent of the seats, after winning only 49 percent of the votes. Was that because so many Democrats were clustered
in urban districts in Madison and Milwaukee? Bill Whitford didn’t think so. The retired law professor and lifelong Democrat
believed the way the district lines had been drawn had effectively rigged the election. BILL WHITFORD, Plaintiff: The value that’s
clearly at stake is that majorities should rule. Democrats got a majority in the statewide
assembly vote, and they got less than 40 percent of the seats in the assembly. I mean, that made very clear that we had no
chance. JEFF GREENFIELD: Whitford is the lead plaintiff
in a lawsuit that asked the federal court to strike down a legislative map because of
a partisan gerrymander, and, last year, a federal district court agreed. While both parties have gerrymandered, since
the 2010 census, it’s mostly helped Republicans, because they have controlled the legislature
and governor’s office in many more states. The Brennan Center for Justice in New York
has found what it calls extreme maps, where partisan bias, largely from gerrymandering,
currently gives the Republican Party a net benefit of 16 or 17 seats in the U.S. House
of Representatives, where Republicans have a 23-seat majority. MICHAEL LI, Brennan Center for Justice: We’re
talking about where you grab and lock in a large share of seats, and make it impossible
for the party to — the other party to win seats. JEFF GREENFIELD: The center’s Michael Li co-authored
the extreme maps report and also a legal brief that supports the Wisconsin challenge. If the court goes your way, it’s fair to say
this is a big deal? MICHAEL LI: This would be a very big deal. The court has never put partisan gerrymandering
out of bounds in the same way that it’s put racial gerrymandering out of bounds or other
things out of bounds. JEFF GREENFIELD: Li notes that prominent Republicans,
including two presidential nominees and a 2016 presidential candidate, back the effort
to limit partisan gerrymandering. But Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin
Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative group, says such limits would be a judicial
nightmare. RICK ESENBERG, President, Wisconsin Institute
for Law and Liberty: The problem that the courts have had — and this problem goes back
30, 40, 50 years — is judges have been unable to identify such a judicially manageable standard. JEFF GREENFIELD: Esenberg filed a Supreme
Court brief supporting the existing maps and arguing that Wisconsin’s assembly districts
follow all of the existing redistricting rules: They’re compact, contiguous, and encompass
communities of interest. A court-imposed change, he says, would be
itself political. RICK ESENBERG: You’re essentially imposing
a constitutional obligation to gerrymander for competitiveness, that is, a constitutional
requirement to compensate for the natural disadvantage that Democratic voters might
have. That, it seems to me, is every bit as partisan
as what the Republicans been accused of doing. JEFF GREENFIELD: Last year, I spoke with North
Carolina Republican State Representative David Lewis, who co-chaired the redistricting committee,
who freely says partisanship is perfectly legitimate. DAVID LEWIS (R), North Carolina State Representative:
I think it’s more honest and up-front to say that, as a Republican, I’m going to follow
the law, I’m going to follow the rules of the law, and if there is a discretionary decision
to be made, I will make it from my partisan point of view. JEFF GREENFIELD: Like Lewis, Wisconsin’s Republican
attorney general, BRAD SCHIMEL, says that nonpartisanship is just an illusion. BRAD SCHIMEL, Wisconsin Attorney General:
We could all dream of finding the unicorn that takes all the politics out of these things. But there’s a reality that the Supreme Court
has recognized, that you’re not — you can’t take the politics out of this. JEFF GREENFIELD: In some states, there is
no partisan fighting about legislative lines, because the politicians don’t draw those lines. In those states, the power has been taken
away from the legislature and placed in other hands. The biggest is California, where former Republican
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger backed referenda that created an independent commission to
handle redistricting. Three other states now take a similar approach. Schwarzenegger says that, when he became governor
in 2003, members of Congress were entrenched and protected. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R), Former Governor
of California: You had 265 congressional elections in a 10-year period, and only one changed
party hands. I always made a joke that there’s more changeover
in a former Soviet politburo than we have here in California. JEFF GREENFIELD: Schwarzenegger says that,
since the independent commission took over the process, the state legislature has become
far less polarized. He believes that’s the key to creating less
partisan districts and relieving gridlock in Washington. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: For decades now, I
have been talking about immigration reform. It can’t get done. You have for decades people talking about
in Washington how important it is to rebuild our infrastructure. It can’t get done. It is a dysfunctional system. And it’s dysfunctional because of our gerrymandering. JEFF GREENFIELD: If the U.S. Supreme Court
upholds the lower court’s findings, it could mean legislative maps across the country will
be challenged. And that would mean a radically different
terrain for the battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeff Greenfield. LISA DESJARDINS: And here now to discuss today’s
arguments, as ever, is Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for “The National
Law Journal.” And she, of course, was in the courtroom today. MARCIA COYLE: I was, Lisa. LISA DESJARDINS: Now, this is an issue almost
as old as our country itself, but yet something that has not been definitively resolved by
the Supreme Court. Can you remind us of the last time the court
talked about this? And it’s significant now. MARCIA COYLE: Oh, absolutely. The court took up a case out of Pennsylvania
in 2003, decided it in 2004, and basically said, we can’t decide this. There is no way to really measure when a partisan
redistricting has gone so far that it violates the Constitution. One of the justices — one of the five who
said that was Justice Kennedy, but he wrote separately to say, you know, years to come,
there may be some way to measure this. Science, social science will evolve to the
point where there will be a standard. And today, in the Supreme Court, the challengers
to the Wisconsin plan offered them several standards. LISA DESJARDINS: And Justice Kennedy was quoted
in many of the very long briefs here. So, what did Justice Kennedy say today, and
what did other justices, especially the chief justice, Roberts, say ? MARCIA COYLE: Justice Kennedy didn’t give
the challengers a hard time at all. In fact, he asked no questions of them. But he did give the state of Wisconsin a rather
difficult time. And we took away from that that he may think
that perhaps it is time for the court to accept one of the standards that’s being offered,
especially in a district where it appeared that most of the justices seemed to feel this
one may have gone a bit too far. LISA DESJARDINS: And Chief Justice Roberts,
however, talked about the institution of the court itself. Can you talk about the stakes that he sees
on the table here? MARCIA COYLE: This was really a fascinating
argument, Lisa. And you saw the policy considerations playing
out in different ways. The chief justice said, look, you know, if
we strike down a redistricting map like Wisconsin, and the decision favors the Republicans or
it favors the Democrats, and we say the reason we did it is because of a mathematical formula,
the average person on the street is going to say — and these are his words — what
a bunch of baloney, that we really voted because you had maybe five Democratic or Republican-appointed
justices. What is that going to do to the integrity
of the institution of the Supreme Court? It’s going to throw us into the thick of politics. On the other hand, you had Justice Ginsburg
offering different policy concerns. She said, what about the precious right to
vote? What incentive is there going to be for people
to vote if the deck is always stacked in favor of one political party? LISA DESJARDINS: I’m wondering about this
case. Is this one of those cases where whatever
the justices decide could have a very quick impact on how our politicians act, whether
they uphold this map or whether they reject it? Can you talk about what could happen? MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely. As the lawyer for the Wisconsin challengers
pointed out, the court is the only institution right now that can deal with what he said
the cusp of a very serious problem, that if the court doesn’t come up with some kind of
test, in 2020, after the census, he said there will be a festival of copycat partisan gerrymanders,
the like of which we have never seen. And that, he said, presents a serious problem
for democracy. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, the right
to vote is our most fundamental right. LISA DESJARDINS: Marcia Coyle, I can’t wait
to see what happens with this case. And you will be here to talk to us about it. Thank you. MARCIA COYLE: And, Lisa, remember, too, our
viewers can listen to the audio on Friday on the Supreme Court Web site. LISA DESJARDINS: Perfect. Thank you, Marcia Coyle. MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *