FORMATSBACK
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
The Supreme Court rightly didn’t accept claims that Wisconsin’s voter districts are drawn to favor Republicans, argues Rick Esenberg in Real Clear Politics. This would have created a precedent for others to lodge claims, without the need for hard evidence of real damage done to the rights of voters. In essence, it would have allowed Democrats to call for district lines to be redrawn, if candidate victories didn’t reflect a given party’s share of local voters. Democrats suffer in this area because their voters are disproportionately concentrated in urban places. The Supreme Court rightly chose not to validate partisan preferences.
Keep on reading at Real Clear PoliticsThe Supreme Court should take a bigger role in cracking down on partisan gerrymandering in the US, infers Richard H. Pildes of The New York Times. Its decision not to accept accusations of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Maryland deprives the country of a much-needed check on the unfair drawing of district lines. In other countries, independent commissions take care of this task, to ensure that it is completed in a fair manner. Gerrymandering is not illegal, but it twists the democratic process, often in favor of the party that is in power. It would benefit America if the Supreme Court recognized this and took a stand against it.
Keep on reading at the New York Times
