Thanks to the Supreme Court, defending real elections will be a core issue in 2020
Catch-22’s suck. And make no mistake, a Catch-22 is exactly what gerrymandering has created and will continue to create, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the court abdicated any role in restricting or regulating partisan gerrymandering. In many states—and in most cases we’re talking about states run by Republicans—the way electoral districts are drawn is unfair and puts one party at a severe disadvantage. The only way to change the way the districts are drawn is to defeat the governing party. The problem is that the only way to defeat the governing party is to win an election that takes place under the current system, the one that puts the party that’s out of power at a severe disadvantage. That’s what we call a Catch-22.
Democratic candidates and campaigns have an opportunity to take bold stances in defense of free, fair, and real elections, and make Republicans defend the actions they have taken to restrict or even deny voters the ability to choose who makes the law. It’s heartening to see that so many of our presidential candidates have already taken such stances, putting forth numerous plans and proposals to protect our elections. Unsurprisingly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan is particularly comprehensive, and includes this on gerrymandering:
No more gerrymandering. Under my plan, states will be required to use independent redistricting commissions to draw federal congressional districts to prevent gerrymandering. Both parties should compete on a level playing field; not in a rigged game designed to suppress the will of the people.