SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Court has announced that oral argument will be held during its March argument session, which falls in the latter half of the month.
Partisan Gerrymandering Back at the Supreme Court
Will the justices finally curb efforts to use control of redistricting to rig maps?
Jan 04, 2019
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in March for partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. The Court's announcement clears a path for the justices to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering by the end of June 2019.
How North Carolina and Maryland's extreme partisan gerrymanders came to be
The North Carolina and Maryland congressional maps that are at issue in these cases are among this decade's starkest examples of extreme partisan gerrymanders, which lock in an artificial statewide majority for the political party drawing the maps, through good and bad election cycles.
The North Carolina cases (Rucho v. Common Cause and Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina) challenge the congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers in 2016. That map was drawn to replace an earlier map that the federal courts struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Like the old racially gerrymandered map, the new map has created an artificial 10-3 Republican advantage in a purple state that is among the most electorally competitive in the nation. In drawing the new map, North Carolina Republicans didn't hide their intent to maximize seats for their party. Representative David Lewis, the lawmaker in charge of the redistricting process, openly proclaimed, in fact, that the map was a "political gerrymander" and that the Republicans' goal was to "draw [it] to give a partisan advantage to ten Republicans and three Democrats."
The resulting map has performed exactly as intended, even in the wave election of 2018. Although Democrats won roughly half of the votes cast statewide for congressional candidates in 2018, North Carolina's congressional delegation retained its 10-3 split (pending resolution of election controversies in the race for the Ninth District).
The Maryland case (Benisek v. Lamone), meanwhile, challenges a Democratic gerrymander of a map that gives Democrats a 7-1 advantage in Maryland's congressional delegation. As in North Carolina, the skew favoring the party that drew the map is no accident.
Like North Carolina Republicans, Maryland Democrats had unilateral control over the redistricting process and used it to transform a map that more fairly represented both parties into one that has created a dependable and substantial Democratic majority. The Democrats' mapmakers secured this majority by packing and cracking Republican voters around the state. Most critically, Democrats successfully flipped the formerly Republican 6th District by removing large numbers of Republican voters and replacing them with heavily Democratic precincts from the Washington, D.C. area. They also packed Republican voters into the other reliably Republican district, the 1st. The resulting Democratic advantage has been very durable: Democrats have held seven of Maryland's eight congressional seats through all four elections under the current map.
The plaintiffs' successes before the trial courts
The plaintiffs in both North Carolina and Maryland won their cases at the trial court level, continuing a recent streak of successes for voters in the federal trial courts.
A trial court initially struck down the North Carolina map in January 2018, and the justices had an opportunity to take up that decision this past summer. Instead, they asked the lower court to review its decision in light of their opinion in Gill v. Whitford, last term's partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. Back in North Carolina, the trial court issued a new opinion again striking down the plan, ruling that 12 out of the plan's 13 districts were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The defendants quickly appealed.
The Maryland plaintiffs won their case without even going to trial. The panel of three federal judges that heard the case unanimously agreed that the Maryland map violated voters' rights under the First Amendment based on the evidence that the plaintiffs had assembled ahead of trial. The court's decision was a long-awaited victory for the Republican voters who brought the case. They have been fighting the Democratic gerrymander for five years, first filing their suit in 2013 and twice appearing before the Supreme Court on other issues related to their case.
The issues on appeal
The North Carolina and Maryland appeals together present several questions. The most important, however, are whether the courts can decide partisan gerrymandering cases at all, and -- if the courts do have that power -- whether either map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. If the justices uphold any of the trial courts' decisions, it will be the first time that the Supreme Court will have struck down a map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.
What's next for the cases
The Court has announced that oral argument will be held during its March argument session, which falls in the latter half of the month. A specific argument date and deadlines for the parties' briefs are forthcoming. On this timeline, the Court will be in position to issue its opinions by the end of its term in June 2019.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Brennan Center for Justice
Thomas Wolf
Thomas Wolf is Counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on redistricting issues. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, he was a litigation associate with the Supreme Court group of a global law firm, where his practice focused on constitutional law and strategic risk management.
Annie Lo
Annie Lo is a Research and Program Associate in the Democracy Program, where she focuses on redistricting reform. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Annie was an intern at the House of Representatives and a summer researcher at the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute and NC Justice Center.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in March for partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. The Court's announcement clears a path for the justices to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering by the end of June 2019.
How North Carolina and Maryland's extreme partisan gerrymanders came to be
The North Carolina and Maryland congressional maps that are at issue in these cases are among this decade's starkest examples of extreme partisan gerrymanders, which lock in an artificial statewide majority for the political party drawing the maps, through good and bad election cycles.
The North Carolina cases (Rucho v. Common Cause and Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina) challenge the congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers in 2016. That map was drawn to replace an earlier map that the federal courts struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Like the old racially gerrymandered map, the new map has created an artificial 10-3 Republican advantage in a purple state that is among the most electorally competitive in the nation. In drawing the new map, North Carolina Republicans didn't hide their intent to maximize seats for their party. Representative David Lewis, the lawmaker in charge of the redistricting process, openly proclaimed, in fact, that the map was a "political gerrymander" and that the Republicans' goal was to "draw [it] to give a partisan advantage to ten Republicans and three Democrats."
The resulting map has performed exactly as intended, even in the wave election of 2018. Although Democrats won roughly half of the votes cast statewide for congressional candidates in 2018, North Carolina's congressional delegation retained its 10-3 split (pending resolution of election controversies in the race for the Ninth District).
The Maryland case (Benisek v. Lamone), meanwhile, challenges a Democratic gerrymander of a map that gives Democrats a 7-1 advantage in Maryland's congressional delegation. As in North Carolina, the skew favoring the party that drew the map is no accident.
Like North Carolina Republicans, Maryland Democrats had unilateral control over the redistricting process and used it to transform a map that more fairly represented both parties into one that has created a dependable and substantial Democratic majority. The Democrats' mapmakers secured this majority by packing and cracking Republican voters around the state. Most critically, Democrats successfully flipped the formerly Republican 6th District by removing large numbers of Republican voters and replacing them with heavily Democratic precincts from the Washington, D.C. area. They also packed Republican voters into the other reliably Republican district, the 1st. The resulting Democratic advantage has been very durable: Democrats have held seven of Maryland's eight congressional seats through all four elections under the current map.
The plaintiffs' successes before the trial courts
The plaintiffs in both North Carolina and Maryland won their cases at the trial court level, continuing a recent streak of successes for voters in the federal trial courts.
A trial court initially struck down the North Carolina map in January 2018, and the justices had an opportunity to take up that decision this past summer. Instead, they asked the lower court to review its decision in light of their opinion in Gill v. Whitford, last term's partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. Back in North Carolina, the trial court issued a new opinion again striking down the plan, ruling that 12 out of the plan's 13 districts were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The defendants quickly appealed.
The Maryland plaintiffs won their case without even going to trial. The panel of three federal judges that heard the case unanimously agreed that the Maryland map violated voters' rights under the First Amendment based on the evidence that the plaintiffs had assembled ahead of trial. The court's decision was a long-awaited victory for the Republican voters who brought the case. They have been fighting the Democratic gerrymander for five years, first filing their suit in 2013 and twice appearing before the Supreme Court on other issues related to their case.
The issues on appeal
The North Carolina and Maryland appeals together present several questions. The most important, however, are whether the courts can decide partisan gerrymandering cases at all, and -- if the courts do have that power -- whether either map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. If the justices uphold any of the trial courts' decisions, it will be the first time that the Supreme Court will have struck down a map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.
What's next for the cases
The Court has announced that oral argument will be held during its March argument session, which falls in the latter half of the month. A specific argument date and deadlines for the parties' briefs are forthcoming. On this timeline, the Court will be in position to issue its opinions by the end of its term in June 2019.
Thomas Wolf
Thomas Wolf is Counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on redistricting issues. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, he was a litigation associate with the Supreme Court group of a global law firm, where his practice focused on constitutional law and strategic risk management.
Annie Lo
Annie Lo is a Research and Program Associate in the Democracy Program, where she focuses on redistricting reform. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Annie was an intern at the House of Representatives and a summer researcher at the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute and NC Justice Center.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in March for partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. The Court's announcement clears a path for the justices to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering by the end of June 2019.
How North Carolina and Maryland's extreme partisan gerrymanders came to be
The North Carolina and Maryland congressional maps that are at issue in these cases are among this decade's starkest examples of extreme partisan gerrymanders, which lock in an artificial statewide majority for the political party drawing the maps, through good and bad election cycles.
The North Carolina cases (Rucho v. Common Cause and Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina) challenge the congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers in 2016. That map was drawn to replace an earlier map that the federal courts struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Like the old racially gerrymandered map, the new map has created an artificial 10-3 Republican advantage in a purple state that is among the most electorally competitive in the nation. In drawing the new map, North Carolina Republicans didn't hide their intent to maximize seats for their party. Representative David Lewis, the lawmaker in charge of the redistricting process, openly proclaimed, in fact, that the map was a "political gerrymander" and that the Republicans' goal was to "draw [it] to give a partisan advantage to ten Republicans and three Democrats."
The resulting map has performed exactly as intended, even in the wave election of 2018. Although Democrats won roughly half of the votes cast statewide for congressional candidates in 2018, North Carolina's congressional delegation retained its 10-3 split (pending resolution of election controversies in the race for the Ninth District).
The Maryland case (Benisek v. Lamone), meanwhile, challenges a Democratic gerrymander of a map that gives Democrats a 7-1 advantage in Maryland's congressional delegation. As in North Carolina, the skew favoring the party that drew the map is no accident.
Like North Carolina Republicans, Maryland Democrats had unilateral control over the redistricting process and used it to transform a map that more fairly represented both parties into one that has created a dependable and substantial Democratic majority. The Democrats' mapmakers secured this majority by packing and cracking Republican voters around the state. Most critically, Democrats successfully flipped the formerly Republican 6th District by removing large numbers of Republican voters and replacing them with heavily Democratic precincts from the Washington, D.C. area. They also packed Republican voters into the other reliably Republican district, the 1st. The resulting Democratic advantage has been very durable: Democrats have held seven of Maryland's eight congressional seats through all four elections under the current map.
The plaintiffs' successes before the trial courts
The plaintiffs in both North Carolina and Maryland won their cases at the trial court level, continuing a recent streak of successes for voters in the federal trial courts.
A trial court initially struck down the North Carolina map in January 2018, and the justices had an opportunity to take up that decision this past summer. Instead, they asked the lower court to review its decision in light of their opinion in Gill v. Whitford, last term's partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. Back in North Carolina, the trial court issued a new opinion again striking down the plan, ruling that 12 out of the plan's 13 districts were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The defendants quickly appealed.
The Maryland plaintiffs won their case without even going to trial. The panel of three federal judges that heard the case unanimously agreed that the Maryland map violated voters' rights under the First Amendment based on the evidence that the plaintiffs had assembled ahead of trial. The court's decision was a long-awaited victory for the Republican voters who brought the case. They have been fighting the Democratic gerrymander for five years, first filing their suit in 2013 and twice appearing before the Supreme Court on other issues related to their case.
The issues on appeal
The North Carolina and Maryland appeals together present several questions. The most important, however, are whether the courts can decide partisan gerrymandering cases at all, and -- if the courts do have that power -- whether either map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. If the justices uphold any of the trial courts' decisions, it will be the first time that the Supreme Court will have struck down a map on partisan gerrymandering grounds.
What's next for the cases
The Court has announced that oral argument will be held during its March argument session, which falls in the latter half of the month. A specific argument date and deadlines for the parties' briefs are forthcoming. On this timeline, the Court will be in position to issue its opinions by the end of its term in June 2019.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.