History
Judicial Review of Gerrymandering in the Supreme Court
Quick fact
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable 'political questions'—meaning federal courts will not decide them, even though they have been allowed to review racial gerrymandering since the 1960s.
Why this is interesting
You've heard of gerrymandering—politicians drawing district lines to secure their own power. But have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court, which often decides hot-button issues, refuses to stop it?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Judicial Review of Gerrymandering in the Supreme Court
Think of the Supreme Court as a referee who can call some fouls but not others. In the United States, every ten years, state legislatures draw congressional and legislative district lines. Those in power may try to draw lines that lump opposing voters together or spread them thinly—this is gerrymandering. When the lines are based on race, the Court can step in under the Equal Protection Clause. But when they are based on party affiliation, the Court has stepped away. The Court accepts racial gerrymandering claims because they suspect discrimination against protected groups. But partisan gerrymandering—drawing lines to favor one party—the Court has declared to be a political question, effectively leaving it to voters, legislatures, and state courts.
A deeper explanation
The Supreme Court has long been hesitant to wade into political waters. The political question doctrine, originating in Baker v. Carr (1962), initially allowed some redistricting cases, such as 'one-person, one-vote' apportionment. However, for partisan gerrymandering, the Court has repeatedly failed to find a manageable standard to test when partisanship crosses into unconstitutional. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present a non-justiciable political question—meaning federal judges cannot decide them because no measurable standard exists, and the Constitution gives that power to the political branches. The Court distinguished racial gerrymandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This decision effectively leaves partisan gerrymandering to state courts, ballot initiatives, or Congress—majorly affecting democratic representation, but without a federal constitutional remedy.