Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Should Redisctricting Rules Be Changed?
Aired December 21, 2003 - 16:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HOLLY FIRFER, CNN ANCHOR: If the Supreme Court changes the rules of redistributing, the American political landscape could be altered permanently. Last week the court heard a Pennsylvania case that could do just that.
With me now me now from Los Angeles is Supreme Court watcher Edward Lazarus, he is the author of the book "Closed Chambers." Welcome.
EDWARD LAZARUS, AUTHOR, "CLOSED CAPTIONS": How are you today, Holly?
FIRFER: I'm well. Let's talk a little bit about that Pennsylvania case. What's at issue here?
LAZARUS: A little bit different than what's at issue in Texas and Colorado, because in Pennsylvania the redistributing occurred at the usual time, after the 2000 census. But what happened there is that Pennsylvania is going to lose two seats. It used to have 21 members of Congress. Now it's only going to have 19, so they redrew the map, and the Republican controlled state legislature redrew it in a way that would guarantee themselves at least 12 out of the 19 seats, even though Pennsylvania is almost an exactly a 50/50 state split between Democrats and Republicans.
FIRFER: So what might the courts do on this case?
LAZARUS: What the challenges are trying to get the court to do is live up to a promise that was made in 1986, in a case called Davis versus Bandemire. In that case the court said that a political gerrymander, if it was bad enough could be unconstitutional, it would violate the principle of one person, one vote. Because the losing party, the voters who are affiliated with that party would not have an equal vote with the voters who were affiliated with the other party.
So, the challengers are asking the Supreme Court to step in here and say, look if you draw these incredibly strangely-shaped districts and do it in order to get your party more seats, that's unconstitutional.
FIRFER: So if the courts do get involved, what kind of precedent then would this set? Would we be seeing this happening all over?
LAZARUS: Oh, yes, this would be a dramatic change, because this is part of a very, very broad pattern across the country. Right now, the nation is split, and so deeply divided and polarized between the two parties that even a small political advantage like an extra seat here or an extra seat there can make a huge difference in either the House or the Senate. So both political parties are going to be watching this case incredibly closely. If the court decides to step in, it's going to stop the political parties from doing some of the gerrymandering that they get away with now.
FIRFER: And it would upset the checks and balances that are already in place for the judicial branch to take a look at this.
LAZARUS: Well the judiciary in the past has not been that interested in policing elections, but Bush v. Gore may have changed all that. And now of course we saw in the campaign finance rulely that they handed down last week that they're interested in keeping corruption out of the process. The question for the court now is whether they consider this kind of political gerrymandering sufficiently corrupt that they're going to step in and put an end to it.
FIRFER: Some people might say though that this is unconstitutional, is it?
LAZARUS: Well, I think it's unlikely the justices are going to find this particular type of gerrymandering unconstitutional. There is some skepticism, particularly among the conservatives on the court, that they ought to be getting into these kind of electoral political battles on the state level. It is probably going to be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision. But I would guess if I had to that the court will stay out of this one.
FIRFER: Let me ask you about Iowa. It's is one of the only states -- it is actually the only state close to nonpartisan redistributing as you can get. It's an extremely competitive state. Do you think the courts might look at this as a model and remedy for the situation?
LAZARUS: If they're going to go down that road, I think that's probably right. What they would be looking for is to end the process of all of these incumbents giving themselves safe seats and also the party in power after each census changing things so that they lock in their majority. And Iowa would certainly be a classic example of a state that doesn't operate much along those lines.
FIRFER: All right, and any idea of when the courts might come out with a ruling?
LAZARUS: They'll certainly decide this case before they break at the end of June next year, because I think this case is going to be closely divided on the court, it probably will be May at least until we hear a ruling.
FIRFER: All right, all eyes will be on that next May. Edward Lazarus, the book, "Closed Chambers," thanks so much for your time today.
LAZARUS: Thank you Holly.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 21, 2003 - 16:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HOLLY FIRFER, CNN ANCHOR: If the Supreme Court changes the rules of redistributing, the American political landscape could be altered permanently. Last week the court heard a Pennsylvania case that could do just that.
With me now me now from Los Angeles is Supreme Court watcher Edward Lazarus, he is the author of the book "Closed Chambers." Welcome.
EDWARD LAZARUS, AUTHOR, "CLOSED CAPTIONS": How are you today, Holly?
FIRFER: I'm well. Let's talk a little bit about that Pennsylvania case. What's at issue here?
LAZARUS: A little bit different than what's at issue in Texas and Colorado, because in Pennsylvania the redistributing occurred at the usual time, after the 2000 census. But what happened there is that Pennsylvania is going to lose two seats. It used to have 21 members of Congress. Now it's only going to have 19, so they redrew the map, and the Republican controlled state legislature redrew it in a way that would guarantee themselves at least 12 out of the 19 seats, even though Pennsylvania is almost an exactly a 50/50 state split between Democrats and Republicans.
FIRFER: So what might the courts do on this case?
LAZARUS: What the challenges are trying to get the court to do is live up to a promise that was made in 1986, in a case called Davis versus Bandemire. In that case the court said that a political gerrymander, if it was bad enough could be unconstitutional, it would violate the principle of one person, one vote. Because the losing party, the voters who are affiliated with that party would not have an equal vote with the voters who were affiliated with the other party.
So, the challengers are asking the Supreme Court to step in here and say, look if you draw these incredibly strangely-shaped districts and do it in order to get your party more seats, that's unconstitutional.
FIRFER: So if the courts do get involved, what kind of precedent then would this set? Would we be seeing this happening all over?
LAZARUS: Oh, yes, this would be a dramatic change, because this is part of a very, very broad pattern across the country. Right now, the nation is split, and so deeply divided and polarized between the two parties that even a small political advantage like an extra seat here or an extra seat there can make a huge difference in either the House or the Senate. So both political parties are going to be watching this case incredibly closely. If the court decides to step in, it's going to stop the political parties from doing some of the gerrymandering that they get away with now.
FIRFER: And it would upset the checks and balances that are already in place for the judicial branch to take a look at this.
LAZARUS: Well the judiciary in the past has not been that interested in policing elections, but Bush v. Gore may have changed all that. And now of course we saw in the campaign finance rulely that they handed down last week that they're interested in keeping corruption out of the process. The question for the court now is whether they consider this kind of political gerrymandering sufficiently corrupt that they're going to step in and put an end to it.
FIRFER: Some people might say though that this is unconstitutional, is it?
LAZARUS: Well, I think it's unlikely the justices are going to find this particular type of gerrymandering unconstitutional. There is some skepticism, particularly among the conservatives on the court, that they ought to be getting into these kind of electoral political battles on the state level. It is probably going to be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision. But I would guess if I had to that the court will stay out of this one.
FIRFER: Let me ask you about Iowa. It's is one of the only states -- it is actually the only state close to nonpartisan redistributing as you can get. It's an extremely competitive state. Do you think the courts might look at this as a model and remedy for the situation?
LAZARUS: If they're going to go down that road, I think that's probably right. What they would be looking for is to end the process of all of these incumbents giving themselves safe seats and also the party in power after each census changing things so that they lock in their majority. And Iowa would certainly be a classic example of a state that doesn't operate much along those lines.
FIRFER: All right, and any idea of when the courts might come out with a ruling?
LAZARUS: They'll certainly decide this case before they break at the end of June next year, because I think this case is going to be closely divided on the court, it probably will be May at least until we hear a ruling.
FIRFER: All right, all eyes will be on that next May. Edward Lazarus, the book, "Closed Chambers," thanks so much for your time today.
LAZARUS: Thank you Holly.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
