Blog Post
Gerrymander Gazette: Walking One District Edition
Article
Rucho v. Common Cause
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most detrimental decisions for democracy. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts – that is, federal courts can do nothing to stop political parties from manipulating voting district boundaries for their own advantage.
What was it all about?
Rucho began in 2016 when Common Cause challenged North Carolina’s congressional map in federal court. Despite Republicans receiving 53% of the statewide vote, they secured 10 of 13 seats.
In the same opinion, the Supreme Court also decided Lamone v. Benisek, a challenge to a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. In that case , Democrats obtained 65% of the statewide vote but claimed 7 of 8 seats.
On the fifth year anniversary of this landmark decision, we reflect on the five most important takeaways from the decision, its impact, and the road ahead.
1. Partisan Gerrymandering Has Gotten Worse
Immediately following the ruling, Common Cause anticipated a dangerous wave of gerrymandering, a fear that has materialized across the country. As Common Cause details in our CHARGE Redistricting Report Card, states in which legislators draw districts were plagued with a lack of transparency, disinterest in community testimony, and partisan manipulation of districts. A statistical analysis of states using several measures of partisan gerrymandering found that some of the worst offenders in the 2010 cycle – like Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin – somehow managed to score even worse on some measures in the 2020 cycle. The intentional manipulation of electoral district boundaries undermines the will of voters, violates fundamental principles of democracy, and disempowers millions of Americans. With the highly competitive 2024 election just months away, addressing gerrymandering is essential to ensuring that democracy remains intact and every American has an equal voice.
2. Legislators are Using Rucho as a Shield to Cover Up Racial Gerrymandering
The Rucho decision created a loophole for legislators in states where they control the redistricting process, allowing them to engage in racial gerrymandering under the guise of targeting the opposing political party.
This defense played out in the recent Supreme Court case Alexander vs. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP (2024). In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld a congressional map that discriminated against the state’s Black residents. The majority accepted the legislators’ argument that their intent was to affect partisan leanings within the district, which, according to Rucho, falls outside the jurisdiction of federal courts.
This ruling sets a troubling precedent. Now, it is permissible to discriminate against a community of color’s voters registered under one political party behind the mask of “partisan politics.” By allowing partisan gerrymandering to serve as a cover for racial discrimination, the Court has jeopardized decades of racial equality and voting rights.
3. Gerrymandering Systems Crack as Public Pressure on Legislators Intensifies
In the wake of Rucho, legislators have done everything they can to protect their redistricting power, but we are beginning to see cracks in their defense. In the modern era of redistricting, it has been nearly impossible to get legislators to curb their own power. However, growing awareness and public pressure now means that politicians can no longer ignore the demand for equitable representation. The movement for fair redistricting is gaining momentum across the country:
This growing movement highlights the importance of public involvement and continuous advocacy in the fight for fair redistricting.
4. State Courts Have Stepped Up
In Rucho, the Court ruled that state courts could still strike down partisan gerrymandering under state law. As a result, state courts have played a crucial role in combating partisan gerrymandering across the country:
These states have joined others in banning partisan gerrymandering under their state constitutions. You can read more about how individual states have responded to partisan gerrymandering in our Community Redistricting Report Card.
5. People are Fighting For Reforms
Across the country, people are rising to the challenge of fighting gerrymandering through a variety of reforms, including litigation, grassroots initiatives, and support for IRCs. These diverse efforts are gaining momentum:
There is no one-size-fits all solution to gerrymandering. Each jurisdiction must adopt the best reforms to fit their unique circumstances. The process may not be perfect, but persistent and determined efforts are essential to achieve a fair and democratic system where every voice is equally heard and valued.
Blog Post
Blog Post
Blog Post