Abstract: As redistricting reaches its decennial peak, and as courts await the next round or redistricting litigation, it is worthwhile revisiting some of the fundamental tenets of the law governing gerrymandering. This article asks three interrelated questions. First, beginning with the apparent collapse of any effort to control partisan gerrymandering, the article inquires as to the different treatment given to geographic carve-ups of territory between competing political parties and the condemnation that would ensue if market rivals were to attempt to divide their respective zones of influence so as to preserve market share. The second part of the argument is to show that this results from the Supreme Court having fastened on limited doctrines of individual rights and nondiscrimination in the political arena, while allowing product markets to be governed by notions of consumer welfare and the preservation of competition. The article then concludes with a proposal to remove from insider political operatives the power to redistrict in order to promote a more competitive political process. The result of this approach would be to render suspect all purposeful districing, thereby taking the pressure off of the vulnerable category of race. The aim is both to restore competition to the political process and to show a possible way out of the postShaw v. Reno morass. 1 Harold R. Medina Professor of Procedural Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School. My thanks for comments on earlier versions to Michael Dorf, Cynthia Estlund, Pamela Karlan, William Marshall, Richard Pildes, Jeff Powell, and participants at the Duke Law School conference on the Law of Politics. Todd Lundell provided invaluable research assistance.
Publication Year: 2002
Publication Date: 2002-12-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 93
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot