How to end the partisan redistricting wars

Brian Lehrer (0:05)

From WNYC, I'm Brian Lehrer. This is my Daily Politics Podcast. It's Thursday, September 24th.

We're 30 shows in a row, until just before election day. We're looking at an issue a day as they relate to the midterm elections, specifically to control of Congress, and also the New York state governor's race. Issue number one was how to make affordable health care and American right. Issue number two yesterday was an important one to do near the beginning of the series, I think. What should the rules be for voting in our democracy?

We talked about mail-in voting, early voting, the registration and voter ID debates, and voter intimidation risks. Today, it's another aspect of the foundation of an electoral democracy. It's issue number three. In this year of partisan redistricting wars, what should the rules be for drawing congressional district lines? Our guest for this is Dan Vicuña, Senior Director of Voting Rights and Redistricting at the Center for Inclusive Democracy. Before that, he spent 12 years on voting rights and redistricting issues with common cause. You know, one of the landmarks of Supreme Court decisions that has enabled so much partisan redistricting was Rucho v. Common Cause back in 2019 while Dan was there. So we'll get into that and more. Dan, thanks for coming on WNYC with us and for joining 30 Issues in 30 Days.

Dan Vicuña (1:34)

Yeah, I'm happy to be here. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer (1:35)

And maybe Rucho is a good place to start. What was Rucho v. Common Cause that Supreme Court ruling in 2019?

Dan Vicuña (1:45)

Well, Rucho v. Common Cause came out of a gerrymander that the North Carolina legislature perpetrated on the public after the 2010 census. You know, they really manipulated congressional lines there to favor Republicans at the expense of Democratic voters, to squeeze more Republican seats out of the electorate than the actual voting would have justified.

Several plaintiffs, including Common Cause, League of Women Voters in North Carolina and others, brought a lawsuit to say, you know, it's our view that partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, violates the First Amendment Rights for Association, it violates equal protection.

And we brought that case to court, took it to the US. Supreme Court, and also it came with a companion case out of Maryland in which the Democrats had manipulated districts there for partisan advantage for them. They came up together, they were argued on the same day. We thought we'd really set the table demonstrating that this is a nonpartisan problem that impacts the ability of Americans, of voters of all stripes, to hold their elected officials accountable on election day. And the Supreme Court punted or fumbled, take whatever football analogy you want, and said that their federal courts are not going to get involved, that this was what they called a politically non-destitiable question, which meant that they thought it's something that belonged with the political branches, and that politicians were free to manipulate districts for partisan purposes at their will. They did invite states to try to fix a problem, and several states have through the creation of independent processes for drawing districts or banning partisan gerrymandering as part of their state constitution. But they said, federal courts, we're not going to get involved, not our problem, good luck. I think as we're probably going to get into, you're seeing the results of that incredibly bad judgment.

Brian Lehrer (3:45)

Right.

Before we get into the results of what that Rucho decision in 2019 led to this year, on why this matters, let's take a step back. You wrote that fair maps are not a technical issue. They are a safeguard for all our rights, and a check on entrenched political interests. Maybe it's so obvious why to most of our listeners that I shouldn't even ask, but would you talk about to help set the foundation for the rest of our conversation, about why you think redistricting, which can seem technical to some people, and I think is never on the list of the top 10 issues that voters are basing their decisions on. Why you think it's a safeguard for all our rights?

Dan Vicuña (4:30)

Yeah, absolutely.

Every 10 years after the census, the census which counts everybody living in the United States, we go through the process of redistricting to equalize population, make sure that districts of the same type have the same number of people in them. But it's also an incredible opportunity to find out what community needs are in terms of representation, be that racial and language minorities, or folks that have some of the same environmental concerns, or care about the same transportation routes, want to make sure that a specific park space is available to them to use, and for them and their families, that their schools are functioning properly. They want to, it's an opportunity for them to make an argument that they should be in the same district so that when they call an elected representative, somebody picks up the phone and listens because they're going to be held accountable to the people on election day. So if a community that has distinct interests is divided between a bunch of different districts, has low numbers in all of them, nobody's really going to answer that call for whatever their crucial health and safety community needs are. So redistricting is an opportunity to make sure that communities that have distinct needs based on at the congressional level or at the state or local level, where a lot of some of the most important governing is done, that elected officials see them as a constituency that's worth being paid attention to, because on election day, they're going to have their say and possibly throw them out if they're not doing their job to represent communities properly.