Supreme Court's Redistricting Ruling Averts 2016 Chaos—But Will It End Gerrymandering?

Election-reform advocates breathed a sigh of relief Monday when the Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved independent redistricting commission in Arizona. The court's 5-4 decision averted potential chaos in the 2016 elections, but whether it represents a significant victory for reformers trying to come up with antidotes to partisan gerrymandering remains to be seen.

"We escaped not a bullet but a cannonball," Michael P. McDonald, an election law expert who teaches political science at the University of Florida, said after the Supreme Court, meeting on the last day before its long summer recess, the opinion in the Arizona case, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the Court's liberal wing. That's because the case could have invalidated a host of election-law changes that have been made through statewide referenda, running the gamut from redistricting rules to voter ID laws.