Fitzpatrick, colleagues urge High Court to rule gerrymandering unconstitutional

U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) last week led a bipartisan group of current and former members of Congress in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to end the political manipulation of district boundaries, a process known as gerrymandering.

“Excessive partisan gerrymandering makes it more difficult for members to do the one job voters expect above all: delivering results for their constituents,” according to the amicus brief filed with the High Court by Rep. Fitzpatrick, along with 20 Republican and 20 Democrat current and former members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Fitzpatrick said that partisan gerrymandering is to blame for worsening “electoral complacency,” which in turn has prompted lawmakers to focus on gaining power rather than on serving their constituents and getting work done in Congress.

“The American people need fewer politicians and more independent voices focused on serving,” said Rep. Fitzpatrick on March 11. “Redistricting reform is a crucial, bipartisan step to ensuring our government remains one of, by and for the people – not just political insiders.”

Among the current members joining Rep. Fitzpatrick in signing the brief are U.S. Reps. Mark Amodei (R-NV), Tom Reed (R-NY), and lead Democrat Alan Lowenthal (D-CA). 

In their brief, the members commented on two pending cases now before the Supreme Court: Rucho v. Common Causeand Lamone v. Benisek, the former an example of a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina, while the latter is an example of a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland.

“Extreme partisan gerrymandering harms our political system and harms the functioning of the House in particular,” according to the brief. “Extreme partisan gerrymandering is undemocratic and cannot be reconciled with the Framers’ idea of a House of Representatives that would be directly accountable to the people through competitive and broad-based elections.”

Specifically, according to the brief, House members “must be free above all else to follow the desires of their constituents.” Partisan gerrymandering, the lawmakers wrote, “undercuts the types of principled, bipartisan or nonpartisan cooperation that most voters crave. And it makes the people feel like their government is rigged against them.” 

The members also pointed out that the Supreme Court in a 2004 decision said that, “the core principle of republican government [is] that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

However, when legislators draw districts that ignore criteria such as representational fairness, natural geography and cohesive communities of interest, in favor of pure partisan gain, that “core principle” is violated, according to the brief.

Extreme partisan gerrymandering, the members wrote, also hurts Americans generally.

“The reduction in constructive dialogue among members and the increased perception that general election outcomes are foreordained cause voters of all stripes to lose faith in the electoral process,” according to the brief.

Rep. Lowenthal noted that last year he “was extremely disappointed” when the Supreme Court didn’t decide “once and for all” that gerrymanders were unconstitutional.

“They have a second chance with these two important cases,” he said, referring to the High Court judges. “Voters should be guaranteed choices at the ballot box, not treated like political pawns to keep entrenched power entrenched.”

The lawmakers concluded in their brief that the High Court should intervene “to address a breakdown in the political process.”

“Recognizing basic constitutional limitations on partisan gerrymandering will encourage political parties and voters to change course and enable them to mend the broken parts of our political process,” they wrote. “This Court should give the nation that chance.”