Law
Why Partisan Gerrymandering Litigation Creates Conflicting Standards Across State Courts
Quick fact
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause declared partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable in federal courts, the only remaining venue is state court—and each state's constitution and precedents produce widely differing standards.
Why this is interesting
Two states can challenge the same partisan gerrymander, yet one court may strike it down while the other upholds it. Why does the legal outcome depend so heavily on the state?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Why Partisan Gerrymandering Litigation Creates Conflicting Standards Across State Courts
Think of redistricting as a game where the majority party draws the board. Partisan gerrymandering is when they draw lines to maximize their seats, not just represent voters. When citizens sue, they can't go to federal court for partisan gerrymandering claims—the Supreme Court said 'no manageable standards' exist. So they go to state court. Each state has its own constitution, which may have its own clauses about free elections, equal protection, or political fairness. Courts interpret these clauses differently, creating a patchwork of standards. For example, a Pennsylvania court used its constitution's 'free and equal' clause to strike down a map, while a North Carolina court found similar claims nonjusticiable under its own constitution. So the same type of lawsuit can succeed or fail simply because of the state.
A deeper explanation
The conflict arises because of the intersection of federalism and the political question doctrine. Federal courts, led by the Supreme Court, have held that partisan gerrymandering is a political question—one that courts lack standards to adjudicate. This is partly because there is no clear metric for 'too much partisan advantage.' In contrast, state courts are not bound by that federal holding for their own state constitutional claims. Each state constitution may have explicit provisions about free elections, equal protection, or even anti-monopoly clauses. State courts also have different traditions: some are more activist, others more restrained. They develop their own tests—some use mathematical ratios like the efficiency gap, others look at intent and effect, others defer to legislatures. This decentralized, state-specific approach ensures that the same underlying behavior (drawing lines for partisan gain) is treated differently across the country, creating a fragmented legal landscape.