Previous 39 / 72 Next

34 RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE Opinion of the Court the reach of its competence. But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, at 177. In this rare circumstance, that means our duty is to say “this is not law.” The judgments of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland are vacated, and the cases are remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered.

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