The Supreme Court’s decision last week that it would not make a ruling on what constitutes excessive partisan gerrymandering in defining the boundaries for various voting districts has left that responsibility with Congress and, more immediately, with state legislatures, courts, and related offices. The court had been considering two cases of alleged excessive partisanship—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—in reaching its conclusions.
Steven O. Kimbrough, Wharton professor of operations and information management, argues that the court’s decision, in effect, says, “We don’t know how to define unfairness. We recognize it—it’s unjust and unfair—but instead of looking at the evidence, we’ll … basically forbid the courts from looking at the evidence.” He then outlines his ideas for the best ways to arrive at the boundaries that define voting districts, including the use of computer algorithms to remove some of the human bias that often creeps into such decisions.
According to Kimbrough, “redistricting as it is practiced is not about finding good plans or serving the public’s interest. The current redistricting regime is increasingly seen as unacceptable, because it is prey to abuse of power in redistricting, known as gerrymandering. The situation prompts an interesting question: What constitutes a good redistricting plan? While we have plenty of examples of bad plans, there has been very little discussion or investigation of what good plans look like. The public’s views are not seriously consulted during legislative redistricting and it is not known what they are. Why don’t we ask?”
Read more at Knowledge@Wharton.
