SCOTUS heard arguments in two partisan gerrymandering cases this week
Also, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two partisan gerrymandering cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. Both represented appeals of district court rulings that found that congressional maps in North Carolina and Maryland, respectively, constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander.
During the course of arguments, the justices appeared divided over the issues central to both cases: are partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable under federal law, and should federal courts intervene to settle disputes over alleged partisan gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. SCOTUS has previously issued rulings affirming that racial gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups, violates federal law.
However, the high court has yet to establish a clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another.
Although the court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases last term, it ruled on procedural and standing grounds in each, without addressing the question of whether it was an issue over which it could exercise legal authority.
The high court is expected to rule on both cases prior to the conclusion of the current term in June of this year.
The Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding redistricting. For example, in 1946, the high court affirmed a district court ruling that federal law did not contain requirements related to the compactness, contiguity, or equality of population of congressional districts. Almost twenty years later, the court changed its decision, ruling that congressional districts must have nearly equal populations in order to ensure that "as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's,” in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964).
If this type of election policy topic seems fascinating to you, signup with one click for our Ballot Bulletin newsletter, which tracks election-related legislation and policy in each monthly edition.
|
