In another thread in the US General Discussion Board, UncleSam said:
The senate used to not be directly elected either and we moved away from that, I think that SCOTUS justices should be elected like most other judges are. Or better yet, they’re never allowed to run for re-election - they serve nine year terms and there is a SCOTUS election each year. I’d personally prefer if these elections were regional like the circuit courts are to ensure that we get representation for all Americans on the court, but I’d be open to a national vote as well.
This made me wonder what the districts for a hypothetically elected Supreme court might look like, if it were regionally elected. So I decided to try it out, assuming the court stays at its current size of 9
I used the number of Congressional districts in each state as a convenient proxy for rough population equality, and tried to draw 9 districts that combined states with a total of 48-49 Congressional Districts (1/9th of 436 Congressional districts, including 1 for Washington DC). The map would need some slight adjustment if the goal were to achieve population equality, but this is in the right ballpark.
As a result of not splitting states other than California while managing to make all the Supreme Court districts contain 48-49 Congressional Districts, the boundaries may seem slightly weird in a few places (e.g. Missouri and Pennsylvania), but overall this map seems pretty reasonable to me.
Supreme Court District 1 (Red: 48.5 Congressional Districts) - Most of California, except about 4.5 Congressional Districts
61.7% Clinton - 31.6% Trump (would change slightly after moving population equivalent to about 4.5 Congressional Districts to Supreme Court District 2)
California would obviously be safe for a liberal Justice.
Supreme Court District 2 (Pink: 48.5 Congressional Districts) - HI, AK, WA, OR, ID, NV, UT, AZ, CO, plus about 4.5 Congressional Districts from CA
46.4% Clinton - 43.1% Trump (would change slightly after adding population equivalent to about 4.5 Congressional Districts from California).
This district necessarily is a bit weird looking because of Alaska and Hawaii, and going around California. An alternative way to get the right amount of districts would be to replace Colorado with Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico (which would make it 45.3% Clinton - 43.8% Trump), but would probably also shift the district with Illinois a tad to the left. Depending on which part of California were added, the 2016 elections results could shift a tad. Regardless, it looks like a pretty clear swing district. Possibly it might lean slightly left if the 2016 results are an indication, but one can imagine other things that might tip it to the right (e.g. Mormons would vote more for a Conservative Supreme Court candidate than for Trump).
Supreme Court District 3 (Purple: 48 Congressional Districts) - NM, TX, OK, AR
53.7% Trump - 41.0% Clinton
Clearly a safe Conservative seat because of Texas inevitably dominating it for the time being, regardless of how it is drawn.
Supreme Court District 4 (Dark Blue: 49 Congressional Districts) - MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, WI, IL
46.9% Trump - 46.3% Clinton
Another clear swing seat (very marginally Trump). I was surprised this wasn't actually more Republican, but that just shows how much geography can fool you. All the rural conservative areas are more or less balanced out by Chicago, despite the large rural landmass and the many small rural farm states. Additionally, in 2008 and 2012 this seat would clearly have voted significantly more for Obama than it did for Clinton in 2016.
Supreme Court District 5 (Dark Green: 49 Congressional Districts) - MO, IN KY, TN, LA, MS, AL
59.2% Trump - 36.5% Clinton
Safe conservative seat in the middle of the country.
Supreme Court District 6 (White: 48 Congressional Districts) - FL, GA, SC
50.3% Trump - 46.3% Clinton
This seat would lean Conservative somewhat, but possibly might be winnable for a moderate. It may be more socially conservative than the 2016 results suggest, though. Evangelical turnout would be a big factor here.
Supreme Court District 7 (Light Blue: 48 Congressional Districts) - MI, OH, PA
49.2% Trump - 46.1% Clinton
This one would be interesting. A rust belt swing district. Although it voted for Trump by surprise, all 3 of its component states voted for Obama. Possibly a populist justice that leaned a bit liberal on economic issues and a bit conservative on social issues might do the best here.
Supreme Court District 8 (Light Green: 49 Congressional Districts) - NJ, DE, MD, DC, WV, VA, NC
50.9% Clinton - 44.4% Trump
A lean liberal district thanks to MD/VA/NJ, but it could vote for a moderate. NJ looks a bit awkward. I originally tried making this include PA, but the population didn't quite work out.
Supreme Court District 9 (Light Blue: 48 Congressional Districts) - NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI
57.4% Clinton - 37.0% Trump
A safe liberal Northeast district. There is no other way to draw this one, at least without splitting New York.
Some questions to think about:
1) If the Supreme were elected, how long should the terms be and how frequently (when) should elections be held?
- UncleSam suggested 9 9-year terms. However, that would mean that there would be elections randomly in off years. So in some parts of the country, there would be major elections for 3 years in a row. That seems like too much to me. If anything, the USA currently has too many elections, or at least has them much more frequently than most countries do (with lots of local elections). Political scientists have found that holding elections too frequently can reduce voter turnout and make the electorate more disengaged. So I would suggest maybe 9 cycling 18-year terms, with an election every 2 years in a different region. 18 years is certainly fairly long, but it is shorter than most current Supreme Court justices with lifetime terms are usually sitting on the Supreme Court. As an alternative, There is of course a tradeoff between allowing accountability and judicial independence, both of which are desirable. But another consideration is that the Supreme Court would need to be redistricted to keep up with population growth, so ideally elections should be in some sort of multiple of 10 years (to allow redistricting with new censuses).
2) What spillover effects could having a regionally elected Supreme Court have on other elections?
- One thing that could be worrisome is that having staggered and regional Supreme Court elections would mean that in random years and in random states, turnout would probably be significantly higher simply because there happened to be a Supreme Court election in that state that year. This would happen both in midterm and Presidential years, cycling through different regions. This would distort the national popular vote (although that is already somewhat the case because of cycling Senate elections).
3) What effects would electing the Supreme Court have on the political parties and Congressional/Presidential elections?
- The obvious first effect is that the Supreme Court would become much less of a direct voting issue for Presidential and Senate races. My guess is on balance that would probably hurt the GOP more, since it tends to rely on support from Evangelicals based largely on the Supreme Court and abortion. If the Supreme Court were elected, Presidential and Congressional Elections would probably shift a bit away from social issues and be relatively more about economic issues and foreign policy.
Anyone else have an alternative map? Would alternative maps make much difference? Is it possible to draw a conservative or a liberal gerrymander? (I did not attempt to gerrymander either way, but was just trying to get all the districts to add up to 48-49 congressional districts, and it seems that restricts the possibilities of how much it is even possible to gerrymander pretty well).
