Gerrymandering/Redistricting

Kathay Feng breaks down oral arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Kathay Feng breaks down oral arguments in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District, one of the most gerrymandered in the country, was once described by a federal judge as resembling “a broken-winged pterodactyl lying prostrate across the center of the state.” As a result, it only seemed appropriate to allow two small and cute pterodactyls to stand up for reform.

The Supreme Court is set to determine whether citizens may participate in decision making related to election integrity. If the answer is No, the public will lose a crucial tool in place since the country’s founding. Specifically, the Court is considering whether citizens may be considered part of their state legislatures when initiating referenda on the “times, places and manner of holding elections,” as prescribed by the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a case with national implications for efforts to end the gerrymandering of congressional districts. Common Cause National Redistricting Director Kathay Feng issued the following statement after arguments:

Redistricting doesn’t always capture the public’s imagination, but here are five reasons why you should care about Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and the problem of gerrymandering.