On April 29, a U.S. Supreme Court majority determined that a Louisiana congressional district map relied too heavily on race; the ruling affects the Voting Rights Act and greatly restricts the ability to create “majority-minority” congressional districts. Predictably, there is outrage at the elimination of one of the principle avenues to political power and representation for people of color via the act. Much of this outrage is from Democrats.
I live in Democratic-supermajority Illinois and close to Chicago, and this outrage is so much Kabuki theater. If you’ve never spent an evening perusing Illinois’ oddly shaped legislative districts, you’re missing some fun. These fancifully tortured shapes make the original “Gerry-mander” of 1812 look like a model of rational contiguity. My own district was redrawn in 2021 and resembles a stylized bird with east and west wings narrowly attached to a central body. I live in one of the narrow connecting corridors. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the political opinions of the folks in my corridor do not generally align with those in the rest of the district. I have become somewhat disenfranchised, politically given “the bird.”
For those upset by the potential loss of political power because the court’s decision threatens their district boundaries, I say, hey, get in line.
The ruling notes how much conditions in the U.S. have changed since 1965, reducing the need for legislative guardrails. (Although credit must be given to the act and other civil rights legislation.) Due to changes in fertility rates and population migration, the percentage of non-Hispanic white people in the U.S. has dropped from a little less than 90% to less than 60%. And reviews of opinions in racial groups show they are hardly monolithic, and treatment as such is dismissive stereotyping. Maybe it’s time to let go the idea that people of color all speak with one voice, no more so than white people.
For those disappointed by the ruling, there is a path forward. If one can show that a congressional district has been created to ensure a majority of white people, or any other race, it is just as unconstitutional and subject to challenge. And if consideration of race is unconstitutional, why isn’t any other group-specific consideration?
And that’s the real potential gain of the ruling: people organizing to take action against gerrymandering itself, the carving up of our population into fiefdoms controlled by the politically entrenched.
Power to the people.
— Eric Jebsen, Wheaton
The case for gerrymandering
The Tribune Editorial Board has asked that we be fair to all voters in our state and create an independent commission to draw legislative maps. This is an incredibly admirable goal. My gut reaction was, “Yes, you are right. We should do what is fair, not what is politically advantageous for the Democratic Party.”
But that didn’t sway me completely to the board’s side. We have a president who chided (if not threatened) the state of Texas and others to engage in partisan gerrymandering, from fear of losing Republican congressional seats in the upcoming midterm elections. We’ve seen the result of his actions — red states have capitulated to the president, and blue states are fighting back by engaging in the same, and also unfair, gerrymandering practices to counter an unequal playing field.
Is this right? Of course not! But current polls show that 80% of Republicans approve of this president’s behavior. What that says to me is that a huge proportion of Republicans are just fine with partisan gerrymandering, provided the results are favorable to them. They clearly don’t care that it is wrong.
And neither do the conservative justices on our Supreme Court. They now have gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — allowing partisan gerrymandering to counter, if not destroy, minority group representation in government.
So as much as I’d like to, I can’t take the high road on this matter, even knowing that Illinois is a horribly gerrymandered state. Unless and until our feckless Congress passes federal legislation barring partisan gerrymandering nationwide, we can’t foreclose that option for Illinois. Why? Because all of us not only deserve fair representation at the state level; we also deserve it at the federal level.
How will we ever achieve that if only one side continually taints the process?
— Dianne Casuto, Lake Forest
Stop the partisan charade
Gerrymandering is cheating, no matter which political side commits it. Gerrymandering disenfranchises voters. What could be considered more unfair? The seemingly logical solution is to legislate districting power to a nonpartisan commission. But not so fast. Such commissions have been voted for, only to be regretted because states not voting for fairness continued their partisanship. Ah, the Supreme Court would well mandate fairness. Oops, no luck there! Citing states’ rights? OK, but not intended to be a license to cheat. Why can’t gerrymandering be outlawed? Despite the complexity, no honest, responsible politician should disagree with fixing it. Stop the partisan charade.
Whether a state is red, blue or purple, it should be an accurate mirror of voter determination, not of the political party in power.
— Richard Palzer, Clarendon Hills
Rise of the new Jim Crow?
Clarence Page’s May 4 column on the U.S. Supreme Court’s weakening of the 1965 Voting Right Act got me to thinking (“Ruling will promote corrupt electoral maps”). I have been a registered voter here in Illinois for almost 60 years. During that time, I have never been blocked from voting. And, here in Illinois, all registered voters are able to vote. But the recent Supreme Court decision appears to be making it less likely for some voters in Republican-controlled states to have their voices heard or their votes to make a difference. I find that appalling.
But I got to thinking. Really, how is the Illinois voting map any different then that of Louisiana? Hasn’t the Illinois voting map been gerrymandered to the benefit of the ruing Democratic Party, just like Republican-controlled states have done?
The only difference I can see, as Page points out, is that while Illinois gerrymanders politically without a racial tinge, other states appear to be disenfranchising Black voters. Is this the rise of a new Jim Crow?
— Bernard Biernacki, Aurora
Headline about court’s ruling
The Tribune’s April 30 front page carried an Associated Press story written by Mark Sherman regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the boundaries of Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District. The headline reads: “Court diminishes Voting Rights Act.”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion reveals that the VRA was neither diminished nor eviscerated. No part of Section 2 of the VRA was struck down or invalidated by the court. But even if the paper’s headline writer was convinced that the VRA was diminished or eviscerated by the court, such opinions belong on the paper’s editorial or opinion pages, not in front-page headlines.
— Randy Harris, Campton Hills
A stain on our democracy
Partisan gerrymandering has become an ugly stain on American democracy. The recent mad scramble for redrawing congressional districts to secure party majorities has resulted in increasing disenfranchisement of voters. The public does not want this chaos.
There are commonsense parameters that Americans can agree on that would create fair district boundaries that represent voters in a particular area. Some states have developed these parameters through independent commissions. It has become clear that a state-by-state solution will not work.
Both Democrats and Republicans must make independent commissions that use agreed-upon parameters a legislative priority in the next Congress. Otherwise, we will continue to erode our democracy and voters will lose faith in their elected representatives.
— Joseph Zimmerman, Mokena, Illinois
Note to readers: In honor of our “Chicago 2050” op-ed series, we’d like to hear from you about your hopes for what Chicago will be like in 25 years. (Sincere thoughts only.) Send a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name and your city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
