As we learned (if nowhere else) from Hamilton, George Washington resigned from politics when his terms were over, even though the American people would have been happy to have him stay in office. The reason was to show the new nation that it was bigger than one person. Despite this display, and whatever your political affiliation, it has repeatedly been shown that for some the business of politics is staying in office. Two recent examples show two ways this is accomplished: use of the election laws, and gerrymandering. As explained in the Chicago Tribune, the first is shown by Wisconsin’s refusal to follow a court order to hold a special election to fill two vacant legislative seats, choosing instead to try and change the State’s special election laws to bypass that ruling, allegedly because of the fear that the Republicans, who control the majority in Wisconsin, may lose the seats.
Then, there is the Supreme Court’s consideration next week of an allegation of partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in a congressional district in Pennsylvania. Gerrymandering is the drawing of voting district lines in such a way that one political party is favored and another is disadvantaged. The case will consider whether gerrymandering claims should be viewed as First Amendment freedom of speech and association claims, and, if so, what effect on elections must be proven in such an illegal gerrymandering claim. This follows a case also involving Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford, where the Supreme Court heard argument regarding the “distasteful” practice of partisan gerrymandering (this time by the Republicans), and the extent to which the Courts should get involved in the practice. A decision in Gill is pending.
