By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. (Image: Circle Creative Studio)
Jun 28, 2019
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Brennan Center for Justice
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.
Yurij Rudensky
Yurij Rudensky serves as Counsel with the Democracy Program, focusing on redistricting issues. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Yurij was an attorney at Columbia Legal Services in Seattle, where his practice focused on civil rights and economic justice impact litigation and policy advocacy.
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.
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.
Yurij Rudensky
Yurij Rudensky serves as Counsel with the Democracy Program, focusing on redistricting issues. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Yurij was an attorney at Columbia Legal Services in Seattle, where his practice focused on civil rights and economic justice impact litigation and policy advocacy.
The Supreme Court has brought an unfortunate end to the years-long fight to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. On Thursday, the court ruled that federal courts have no role to play in disputes over maps that were drawn on a purely partisan basis.
The ruling is a setback for democracy, undoing a strong, recent string of victories by voters in trial courts around the nation. By refusing to let the federal judiciary tackle this critical issue, the court has set the stage for more attempts at extreme gerrymandering and raised the importance of enacting other reforms. Chief among them is H.R. 1, which was passed by the House in March but is being blocked in the Senate. It would ban partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw congressional lines in every state.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in the cases out of North Carolina and Maryland, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases because there are no "discernable and manageable standards" with which to identify when these gerrymanders are unconstitutional.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent vehemently counters this notion. Opining that the majority's "complacency has no cause," Kagan points to the many ways that courts can tackle the issue. The majority dismissed these options, determining that the issue presents "political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."
By barring the federal courts' oversight of partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has made it harder to fight for fair maps. Voters in extremely gerrymandered states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland will once again be forced to use unconstitutional maps for their upcoming elections. The longer-term and even graver threat is extreme partisan gerrymandering running rampant when the next round of redistricting starts in 2021.
Although federal litigation is no longer a viable route toward fair maps, other opportunities exist. State courts might see an uptick in gerrymandering cases. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down an extreme partisan gerrymander as a violation of its state constitution.
Meanwhile, citizens and state lawmakers can join forces to pass legislative reforms ahead of the next round of redistricting. Public support for these reforms is strong. In 2018, Democrats and Republicans alike voted to pass redistricting reforms in five states. And this year, the Virginia and New Hampshire legislatures passed bills to reform their own map-drawing processes. More states should follow suit in 2020, with time remaining for many to add public participation, transparency, and improved map-making criteria to their redistricting processes.
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.