Gerrymandered America is heading towards constitutional crisis

A landmark Supreme Court ruling has made it harder to challenge racial discrimination in US voting maps, handing Republicans a potential electoral advantage. The decision raises deeper questions about the health of American democracy and the resilience of its constitutional institutions.

Natale Labia writes on the economy and finance. Partner and chief economist of a global investment firm, he writes in his personal capacity. MBA from Università Bocconi. Supports Juventus.

America’s claim to be the world’s model democracy has always depended on a degree of vain self-belief that others were expected to share. For much of the twentieth century this was plausible. In the age of Trump, it is far less clear. What is clear, however, is that the current electoral system in the US is not fit for purpose, nor is it, in any meaningful way, a representative democracy.

Last month the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Louisiana vs Callais, gutting section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the legislation that ended the Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement of black Americans. In a 6-3 ruling along the usual partisan lines, six conservative justices – three of them appointed by Donald Trump – effectively restored an “intent” standard to voting discrimination cases. This makes them all but impossible to win. On this critical issue, the US has regressed to pre-1965.

This ruling has both immediate and longer-term consequences. The most immediate effect is arithmetical. Within hours of the decision, Louisiana’s governor scrapped existing district maps and demarcated new ones that eliminated majority black constituencies – even as primary voting was already happening. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee duly followed suit.

The net result is obvious; Republicans look set to gain roughly half a dozen House seats than before the changes, giving the party an estimated four percentage point structural lead in congressional elections, according to polling estimates.

Whether this is enough for the Republicans to retain control of the House is unlikely; the scale of the anti-Trump wave is likely to be greater than the gerrymandered windfall. Yet, the battle for control of the House will, thanks to this legislation, be considerably closer than it otherwise would have been.

Trump, in character, was perfectly explicit on the purpose of all this, having asked Texas last year to redraw its voting boundaries for additional Republican seats, as nonchalantly as if he were ordering room service.

The more structural consequence is constitutional, bringing into question whether indeed