Previous 42 / 72 Next

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 3 KAGAN, J., dissenting gerrymandering claims are really so hamstrung—so unable to carry out their constitutional duties—as the majority thinks. A The plaintiffs here challenge two congressional districting plans—one adopted by Republicans in North Carolina and the other by Democrats in Maryland—as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. As I relate what happened in those two States, ask yourself: Is this how American democracy is supposed to work? Start with North Carolina. After the 2010 census, the North Carolina General Assembly, with Republican majorities in both its House and its Senate, enacted a new congressional districting plan. That plan governed the two next national elections. In 2012, Republican candidates won 9 of the State’s 13 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives, although they received only 49% of the statewide vote. In 2014, Republican candidates increased their total to 10 of the 13 seats, this time based on 55% of the vote. Soon afterward, a District Court struck down two districts in the plan as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. See Harris v. McCrory, 159 F. Supp. 3d 600 (MDNC 2016), aff ’d sub nom. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U. S. ___ (2017). The General Assembly, with both chambers still controlled by Republicans, went back to the drawing board to craft the needed remedial state map. And here is how the process unfolded:  The Republican co-chairs of the Assembly’s redistricting committee, Rep. David Lewis and Sen. Robert Rucho, instructed Dr. Thomas Hofeller, a Republican districting specialist, to create a new map that would maintain the 10–3 composition of the State’s congressional delegation come what might. Using sophisticated technological tools and

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