North Carolina Gerrymander Ruling Reflects Politicization of Judiciary Nationally

In recent years, the judiciary’s politicization has become a prominent issue across the United States. One such example of this is the North Carolina gerrymander ruling that reflects the politicization of judiciary nationally. This ruling was a significant step towards ending the practice of gerrymandering, which has been used by political parties to manipulate voting districts in their favor.

The North Carolina Gerrymander Ruling: What Happened?

In 2016, a federal court in North Carolina ruled that the state’s congressional districts were unconstitutionally gerrymandered along racial lines. The court found that Republican lawmakers had intentionally drawn the districts to dilute the voting power of African Americans. The ruling required the state to redraw the congressional map before the 2018 midterms.

However, in 2017, the Supreme Court put the ruling on hold, arguing that the lower court had not sufficiently considered the legislature’s interests in drawing the districts. The case was sent back to the lower court, which then again found the districts to be unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering.

The case eventually made its way back to the Supreme Court in 2019, where it was decided that the court did not have the authority to resolve the case. Instead, the court sent it back to the lower court, effectively letting the state’s new maps stand.

What Does This Ruling Say About the Judiciary?

The North Carolina gerrymander ruling reflects the ongoing politicization of the judiciary nationally. The Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back to the lower court instead of issuing a final ruling shows the Court’s reluctance to make definitive decisions on controversial issues.

Additionally, the North Carolina case highlights the importance of judicial appointments and how they can shape the makeup of the judiciary. The judges who presided over the North Carolina case were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and their decisions reflected their respective ideologies. The Supreme Court’s current conservative majority has led to concerns that it will be more likely to uphold gerrymandering and other practices that favor Republicans.

What Can Be Done to Address This Issue?

One solution to address the politicization of the judiciary is to increase transparency and accountability. For example, some states have implemented judicial performance evaluation systems that assess judges’ performance and recommend retention or removal.

Another solution is to address the root causes of partisan gerrymandering. Several states have implemented independent redistricting commissions, which are responsible for redrawing voting districts in a nonpartisan manner. This approach reduces the role of politicians in the redistricting process and ensures that voting districts are drawn in a fair and unbiased manner.

Conclusion

The North Carolina gerrymander ruling reflects the ongoing politicization of the judiciary nationally. It highlights the importance of judicial appointments and the potential for ideological biases to shape judicial decisions. To address this issue, it is necessary to increase transparency and accountability within the judiciary and address the root causes of partisan gerrymandering. Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the judiciary remains an independent and nonpartisan institution that upholds the rule of law.

propose ways to prevent the politicization of the judiciary.