No Decision in Gerrymandering Case

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

The Supreme Court punted another case today:

The justices have had trouble in previous cases deciding gerrymandering issues. That tradition continued Monday, as the court left for another day resolution of the hardest question: whether the Constitution forbids a political party from drawing distorted election maps for its own benefit….The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the challengers hadn’t yet adequately shown that they had legal standing to sue. Still, the court said the plaintiffs should be allowed another chance to show that they were harmed in a concrete way by the GOP line-drawing, and it sent the case back to a lower court.

This probably points to some genuine indecision on the part of one or two of the justices. The question is: what is it they’re having a hard time with? Today’s ruling doesn’t really give much of a hint. I can only hope that as gerrymandering gets more outrageous and more computerized, they finally figure out that something needs to be done to restore the intent of the Constitution.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest