Are the courts too partisan?

• Author: Arden, Wayne
• Position: Party activists' debate on the courts' role in the redistricting process

Two party activists discuss the role of the courts in the process of redrawing voting district boundaries.

Wayne Arden

YES

Twelve consecutive years of Republican appointees to the federal judiciary have had a profound impact on the present round of redistricting. Nearly every decision to date involving Democratic vs. Republican controversies has reflected the partisan affiliation of the judges.

Democrats control both houses of the legislature in 29 states, and Republicans only six. The GOP, unable to gain control of legislative chambers and recognizing the partisan advantages of having the federal judiciary exercise jurisdiction over redistricting, engaged in a national strategy to have te judiciary assume control over the line-drawing.

This strategy is evident from statements and actions of Republican officials throughout the country. In Alabama, Governor Guy Hunt, a Republican, reneged on his promise to call the Legislature into special session last fall to adopt a congressional redistricting plan. Hunt publicly stated that Republicans would be in a stronger position if a court, rather than the Legislature, drew the congressional plan.

In states where Democrats control both chambers but have a GOP governor, Republican legislators and governors have refused to negotiate in good faith to develop redistricting plans. In addition, the GOP has filed pre-emptive lawsuits in 13 states alleging legislative impasse and requesting the court to retain jurisdiction. It is evident that the GOP is seeking from the courts what it cannot obtain through the political process--a GOP redistricting plan.

From a Republican perspective this strategy has been effective. Legal precedent and the facts have frequently been secondary to partisan interests. The most blatant examples have occurred in Illinois, Texas, Alabama and Minnesota.

In Illinois, a three-judge federal court, all Reagan appointees, adopted a congressional map proposed by the Republican plaintiffs. In selecting the GOP proposal, the court relied solely upon the fact that the Republican plan had an overall population difference of one person and the Democratic alternative had a difference of 17 people and that the majority Hispanic district proposed in the Republican plan had a Hispanic population of 65.02 percent whereas the Democratic alternative had a Hispanic population of only 65 percent. No court has ever selected one plan over another on as limited a distinction as expressed in this, the...