The greatest challenge to ending partisan Gerrymandering has always been whether there exist neutral, judicially manageable criteria to draw and evaluate competing electoral maps. The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2004 and again in 2019 that no such neutral standards exist and therefore partisan redistricting was a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. Meanwhile, the state courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other states, as laboratories of democracy, have used neutral criteria to draw or choose among competing electoral maps where the legislature and/or governor was in deadlock over electoral maps.
This course will explore how rigorously applied drafting standards, including compact districts with minimal split municipalities, and equal population among districts can work to drive out most partisan redistricting and how partisan fairness can be used to consistently ensure fair maps. They will explore how all neutral criteria must have quantifiable measures of fairness that allow courts to choose among competing maps.
We are thrilled to hear from Justice David N. Wecht from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Justice Anita S. Earls from the North Carolina Supreme Court, as well as professors and critical thinkers in this field. The course should be of interest to lawyers, legislators, judges, and anyone who are committed to fair electoral maps that will result in a healthy representative democracy.