Previous 37 / 72 Next

32 RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE Opinion of the Court be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party” provides little guidance on the question. See post, at 31, n. 6.) Indeed, numerous other States are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation. One way they are doing so is by placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions. For example, in November 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creating multimember commissions that will be responsible in whole or in part for creating and approving district maps for congressional and state legislative districts. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§44, 46; Mich. Const., Art. IV, §6. Missouri is trying a different tack. Voters there overwhelmingly approved the creation of a new position—state demographer—to draw state legislative district lines. Mo. Const., Art. III, §3. Other States have mandated at least some of the traditional districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have outright prohibited partisan favoritism in redistricting. See Fla. Const., Art. III, §20(a) (“No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”); Mo. Const., Art. III, §3 (“Districts shall be designed in a manner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness. ‘Partisan fairness’ means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal efficiency.”); Iowa Code §42.4(5) (2016) (“No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or other person or group.”); Del. Code Ann., Tit. xxix, §804 (2017) (providing that in determining district boundaries for the state legislature, no district shall “be created so as to unduly favor any person or political party”). As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rucho v. Common Cause

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether partisan issues such as gerrymandering are justiciable by the court.

Alleged Acts: Voters in both Maryland and North Carolina alleged that the congressional districting maps were unconstitutional as partisan gerrymandering. In North Carolina, the Republican controlled legislator drew a map based on political data. In Maryland the Democratic legislature redrew the congressional map to flip one two remaining Republican districts.

Procedural history: The District Court Judge determined that the congressional map was unconstitutional and required new maps to be drawn. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case and vacated the judgment for additional considerations. The District Court struck down the plan a second time and appealed again directly to the Supreme Court.

Summary: Partisan gerrymandering is under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the courts. In fact, Congress has utilized this jurisdiction to limit the use of political consideration in congressional map drawing. Similar, state mechanisms such as Florida's Fair District Amendment, could provide effective legal remedies. However, without a fair district element to the United States Constitution, the court may not remedy the claim before it.

Conclusion: The Court held that gerrymander claims were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court because it involves a political question.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting

Applicable Law(s): U.S. art.1.

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 27, 2019

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.90371529

Longitude: -77.06409858

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Rucho v. Common Cause.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Rucho v. Common Cause

Primary Documents

Notifications