Previous 5 / 72 Next

Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 5 Syllabus vide the basis for a justiciable claim. See, e.g., Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118. Pp. 29–30. (d) The conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable neither condones excessive partisan gerrymandering nor condemns complaints about districting to echo into a void. Numerous States are actively addressing the issue through state constitutional amendments and legislation placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions, mandating particular districting criteria for their mapmakers, or prohibiting drawing district lines for partisan advantage. The Framers also gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. That avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open. Pp. 30–34. 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 and 348 F. Supp. 3d 493, vacated and remanded. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

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