|
Mark A. Graber, University of Maryland, College Park Mark A. Graber is professor of political science and law at the University of Maryland, College Park. He can be reached at mgraber@gvpt.umd.edu and (301) 405-4215.
Supreme Court decisions have more routinely influenced congressional elections. The justices in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures had to apportion legislative districts consistent with the principle of one-person, one vote. "The fundamental principle of representative government in this country," Chief Justice Earl Warren proclaimed, "is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, economic status, or place of residence within a State." Subsequent decisions made clear that states must "make a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality" when apportioning congressional districts (Kirkpatrick v. Preisler [1969]). State legislative districts have been held to lower standards. The reapportionment revolution spawned numerous unanticipated consequences. The main beneficiary of one-person, one-vote has been rapidly growing suburbs, not the inner cities as Chief Justice Warren expected. Required to redistrict after the census, state legislators typically responded by increasing the number of safe districts for incumbents and maximizing the power of the dominant party in the local legislature. The Supreme Court has consistently refused to challenge even the most extreme partisan gerrymanders. Four justices in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) insisted the matter was non-justiciable. As a result, congressional majorities have become relatively enduring, and substantial seat swings an historical relic. The Supreme Court in the United States has also played a major role in debates over racial issues and voting. During the 1960s, the justices handed down several decisions sustaining Congressional power to regulate voting to prevent discrimination. South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) upheld those provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that banned literacy tests in areas where Congress found such devices had been used to discriminate against persons of color. Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) upheld provisions in the Voting Rights Act forbidding discrimination against persons educated in Puerto Rico. This law, the judicial majority ruled was a constitutional means of "gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services for the entire Puerto Rican Community." Both decisions made clear that the national legislature could "do more than . . . forbid violations of the [14th and] 15th Amendment(s) in general terms." Congress, the Supreme Court has decided, may also identify constitutional violations and pass laws designed to prevent and deter future constitutional violations. The justices have been more strict when states attempt to create black majority districts not mandated by the Voting Rights Act. Present law regards as unconstitutional any apportionment where "race predominates in the redistricting process" (Miller v. Johnson [1995]). The justices did by a 5-4 vote uphold a black majority district justified on the ground that African-American voters were likely to be particularly committed Democrats (Hunt v. Cromartie [1999]). Whether that decision will facilitate future majority-majority districts remains to be seen. The actual impact of those districts also remains to be seen. While liberals on the court have been more supportive of efforts to use race in the redistricting process, the weight of evidence suggests that concentrating African-American voters in a few safe districts may benefit more conservative interests. Recent Publications on the Elections and the Courts |
Join/Renew Now!
Contribute
Contact APSA