您的当前位置:首页 > 新闻中心 > Elena Kagan was right about the harms of gerrymandering. 正文
时间:2024-09-23 18:28:51 来源:网络整理 编辑:新闻中心
Recently in Jurisprudence The DOJ Is Making a Huge Mistake Censoring a J
What injury does partisan gerrymandering cause? Until last year’s Supreme Court decision in Gill v. Whitford, almost everybody would have given the same answer. Gerrymandering harms parties by costing them seatsthey would have won if the district lines hadn’t been manipulated.
In her impressive concurrence in Whitford, though, Justice Elena Kagan offered a necessary and expanded accounting of the damage it wreaks. In this view, the problem with gerrymandering isn’t just that it costs parties seats but also that it impedes their associational activities. As Kagan put it, “members of the disfavored party,” having been “deprived of their natural political strength by a partisan gerrymander,” may “face difficulties fundraising, registering voters, attracting volunteers, generating support from independents, and recruiting candidates to run for office.” All of these party functions are protected by the First Amendment because they involve the right of association. And all of them, according to Kagan, may be inhibited by gerrymandering.
Since Whitford, plaintiffs in several states have mounted associational challenges against district plans. They have introduced testimony that after the plans went into effect, fewer candidates from the victimized party ran for office, donors gave less money to that party’s candidates, voters became less supportive of the party, and so on. This evidence is certainly relevant, but on its own, it can’t prove causation. It can’t show, that is, that the litigants’ associational difficulties were due togerrymandering—and not, say, to Trump’s election, a shift in public opinion, a strong economy, or any number of other factors.
AdvertisementTo come closer to establishing a causal link, political scientist Chris Warshaw and I first assembled a data set of gerrymandering. We used several common measures of partisan advantage, all calculated for congressional and statehouse elections from 1972 to the present. We then quantified as many as we could of the associational activities that Kagan mentioned in Whitford. In sum, we found data on the seats that parties contest, the quality of parties’ candidates, the contributions these candidates receive, and voters’ partisan preferences. Lastly, we controlled for time- and state-related factors that might also influence the relationship between gerrymandering and party health.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Our findings should also be of interest to the Supreme Court as it prepares to hear two more gerrymandering cases next month.In a nutshell, we found that Kagan was right. A party disadvantaged by gerrymandering fails to contest more districts. The candidates it does nominate have weaker credentials. Donors give less money to these candidates. And voters are less inclined to support them. Moreover, these effects are statistically significant at both the congressional and statehouse levels and hold no matter how gerrymandering is measured. The effects are substantively quite large too. A 1 standard deviation rise in gerrymandering, for example, is linked to about a 5 percentage point drop in the targeted party’s share of campaign contributions. It’s also tied to roughly a 9 point decline in relative candidate quality, as measured by incumbency or having previously won another office.
AdvertisementThese results should be helpful to the plaintiffs currently pursuing associational claims around the country. To date, these litigants have relied on qualitative testimony from injured voters, candidates, and party officials. This evidence can now be complemented by our data-driven conclusion that, across many states and years, gerrymandering hinders parties in performing several key functions. Our study provides the methodological rigor that has been absent, so far, from the courtroom.
Our findings should also be of interest to the Supreme Court as it prepares to hear two more gerrymandering cases next month. The plaintiffs in Whitforddidn’t allege associational burdens. The court thus left “for another day consideration of other possible theories of harm not presented here.” That day has now arrived. The litigants in the pending Maryland and North Carolina suits have raised associational claims. The lower courts in these cases have also ruled in favor of the claims, holding that the district maps are unconstitutional because they breach the First Amendment right of association.
This time around, then, the high court won’t be able to dodge Kagan’s associational account of gerrymandering. And when the justices confront this view, they should find that it’s correct. Gerrymandering does systematically undermine party health. And it does so not just in Maryland and North Carolina, and not just during the last decade—but, as our study shows, throughout the nation and over almost half a century.
Tweet Share Share Comment2016's $400 GPU vs. 2019's $400 GPUs2024-09-23 18:13
鍥介檯閲戜环鍒涗笅杩?0涓湀鏂伴珮 闈掑矝閲戦グ鍝佷环鏍艰蛋楂榑涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝2024-09-23 18:07
关爱母亲 从产后康复开始2024-09-23 17:58
掌上时代!国内首个检验检疫手机服务APP“国检窗”上线2024-09-23 17:53
Netanyahu’s Inferno2024-09-23 17:43
广场跳起来,金融知识学起来2024-09-23 17:21
大力加强四项建设 努力实现四个提升2024-09-23 17:01
人社部回应跨省异地就医四问:谁受益?咋办理?2024-09-23 16:47
Pixel 9 Pro XL hands2024-09-23 16:03
汉源县人大:夯实基层人大基础 增强人大工作活力2024-09-23 15:52
18 Slightly Submerged Architectural Wonders2024-09-23 18:28
三雅园雅安味道核心区即将对外开放2024-09-23 18:09
工行青岛分行认真贯彻落实”金融知识进万家”活动部署2024-09-23 17:54
2017鐢靛崥浼氬懆浜斿皢寮€骞 鍏ぇ绫诲垱鏂板搧鎶㈠厛鐪媉涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝2024-09-23 17:45
Best smartphone deal: Google Pixel 8a on sale for $449 at Amazon2024-09-23 17:27
1至4月 260个市重点项目完成投资超100亿元2024-09-23 17:26
根治拖欠农民工工资情况 维护好农民工合法权益2024-09-23 17:09
四川省名山茶树良种繁育场入选国家现代农业科技示范展示基地2024-09-23 16:26
N. Korea test2024-09-23 15:57
比学赶超 再创佳绩2024-09-23 15:49