Virginia Tech expert available to explain Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims
The high court decided Thursday that federal courts should play no role in deciding whether partisan redistricting goes too far, giving a dominant political party in a state leeway to draw electoral maps that preserve or even increase its power.
Today’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering, “while deeply disappointing to advocates of redistricting reform,” is not entirely unreasonable or unprincipled, says a Virginia Tech expert on the topic.
Nick Goedert is an assistant professor in the department of Political Science and is considered an authority on the topic of gerrymandering, redistricting and the impact on elections.
The high court decided Thursday that federal courts should play no role in deciding whether partisan redistricting goes too far, giving a dominant political party in a state leeway to draw electoral maps that preserve or even increase its power.
“In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts does point out that partisan gerrymandering could be, and in many cases, is being, addressed by the political branches of government, be they state legislatures, state constitutions through the state courts, citizen initiatives, or even federal legislation passed by Congress,” said Goedert. “We’ve seen considerable progress in these areas just in the last year, and after today’s decision, this is where future reform efforts will need to concentrate.”
Expertise featured in The Hill and New York Times.
Schedule an interview with Nick Goedert
Contact Bill Foy by email (fwill55@vt.edu) or phone at 540-998-0288. Virginia Tech's television and radio studio can broadcast live HD audio and video to networks, news agencies, and affiliates
