Why the Republicans will retain the House in 2016...and 2018...and 2020

At this stage of the 2016 election cycle, which party will control the White House and the US Senate come January 2017 seems to be very much up in the air. The US House of Representatives on the other hand, is almost certain to remain in the hands of the Republican Party, a situation which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Anthony J. McGann , Charles Anthony Smith , Michael Latner and Alex Keena argue that the GOP’s continued control of the House is down to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts by Republican-controlled state legislatures. They write that in certain states like Pennsylvania, this gerrymandering leads to an asymmetry between the number of seats the Democrats gain and their vote share, reducing their share of US House seats

Gerrymandering the Presidency: Why Trump could lose the popular vote in 2020 by 6 percent and still win a second term.

Donald Trump was the clear Electoral College winner in the 2016 election, despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin to Hillary Clinton. Anthony J. McGann, Charles Anthony Smith, Michael Latner and Alex Keena write that, unless the Supreme Court stops congressional gerrymandering, President Trump can guarantee re-election in 2020 – even if he loses by 6 percent

The US Supreme Court has decided partisan gerrymandering is outside its remit. A democratic restoration now depends on the people alone.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that reviewing partisan gerrymandering cases was outside the remit of federal courts. Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith argue that in failing to recognise the vote dilution caused by the redrawing of a state’s electoral district boundaries to the party in power’s advantage, as well as connecting the majority rule standard to the 14th Amendment, the decision removes Americans’ fundamental right to participate equally in the political process

A discernable and manageable standard for partisan gerrymandering

The case of Veith v. Jubelirer (2004) challenges us to find a standard for partisan gerrymandering that is judicially discernable and manageable. Without such a standard even the most egregious partisan gerrymanders cannot be effectively challenged. However, we argue that the way to find a suitable standard is not to embark on a quest for a “new” standard. Rather it is to take the existing valid measures that science gives us, and show that these can be grounded in constitutionally protected rights. Using recent results in social choice theory, we show that the existing partisan symmetry standard can be derived from an individual right to equal protection. We also show that the existing technology for measuring partisan symmetry can provide a judicially manageable test for partisan bias

Maryland's electoral maps show how proportional representation could solve the problem of gerrymandering

This week the US Supreme Court hears a case concerning the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in Maryland. Examining current, past, and alternative electoral maps, Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann, and Charles Anthony Smith find that by making districts more competitive, some redistricting plans can actually work against one party or the other. Only the introduction of proportional representation with multi-member districts, they argue, would mean a truly fair electoral system for Maryland

Republican state legislatures are attacking voting rights. Congress has the power to fight back.

The 2020 election saw the Democratic Party re-take the White House and the United States Senate and hold control of the House of Representatives. In the months that have followed, Republican-controlled state legislatures have proposed more than 200 bills which would roll back voting ability and access. Michael Latner, Alex Keena, Anthony McGann and Charles Anthony Smith give an overview of these measures, and look at the For the People Act as Congressional Democrats’ best chance to protect voting rights

The 2018 House elections may be historic enough to end the redistricting wars

This year’s midterm elections saw reforms to the way US House districts are drawn in four states. Alongside these successful measures, write Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith, Democratic takeovers of gubernatorial mansions and successful voting rights reforms such as Florida’s felon reenfranchisement are likely to signal the beginning of an era of significant electoral reforms in the US

In its latest decision, the Supreme Court has got it wrong when it says that partisan gerrymandering only hurts voters in specific districts

Last week, the US Supreme Court sent gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland and North Carolina back to their respective states' courts, with the unanimous opinion that state political parties could not prove that they were harmed by the gerrymandering of individual legislative districts. Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith argue that the Supreme Court is wrong: gerrymandering in these states means that the majority are often not represented, which is a violation of those individuals’ political equality, whether or not they live in one of the districts in question

In its latest decision, the Supreme Court has got it wrong when it says that partisan gerrymandering only hurts voters in specific districts

Last week, the US Supreme Court sent gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland and North Carolina back to their respective states' courts, with the unanimous opinion that state political parties could not prove that they were harmed by the gerrymandering of individual legislative districts. Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith argue that the Supreme Court is wrong: gerrymandering in these states means that the majority are often not represented, which is a violation of those individuals’ political equality, whether or not they live in one of the districts in question