Skip to content
Subscribe

IVN Readers React: Seriously, This Is Legal?

IVN Readers React: Seriously, This Is Legal?
Published:

Should lawmakers be allowed to draw electoral districts to protect their party from competition? Can the courts rule legislative and congressional maps unconstitutional on the basis of partisan and political discrimination?

Those are among the questions the Supreme Court is considering in the case Gill v. Whitford.

To give you a brief overview, Gill v. Whitford is a partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin in which a group of Democratic voters are challenging legislative districts drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Though the statewide vote is split nearly 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans control two-thirds of the legislative seats. A district court ruled that the legislative districts were unconstitutional.

The ruling was significant because it was the first time a federal court ruled electoral districts constituted a gerrymander not on the basis of race or class, but because they discriminated against voters on a partisan basis.

Now, the case is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which could overturn its previous ruling in 2004 (Vieth v. Jubelirer) that there was no measurable or judicial standard for determining when electoral districts were "too partisan."

The majority of state legislatures in the US draw the electoral districts for their state, and whether we are talking about Republican-controlled Wisconsin or Democratic-controlled Maryland, the party in power draws electoral districts to protect their incumbents and maintain power.

By cramming voters outside the party into a handful of districts, they dilute the voting power of minority parties and independents, shut out competition, and distort representation.

In other words, lawmakers in most states pick their voters, not the other way around. And when we asked IVN readers if legislators should be allowed to draw districts to protect their party from competition, most responded with, "Seriously, this is legal?"

Over 2,000 IVN readers reacted to the poll, nearly 1,400 of whom selected the final option, and no one responded, "Yes." Here is what some IVN readers had to say:

What do you think? Is Gill v. Whitford an opportunity to end partisan gerrymandering?

Photo Source: AP

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

IVN Readers React: Seriously, This Is Legal?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us