In recent years, gerrymandering has been a hot topic in American politics. It is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favor one political party over another. Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters rather than letting voters choose their representatives. Despite being a controversial issue, the Supreme Court has played an essential role in shaping the debate on gerrymandering.
The first significant case related to gerrymandering came before the Supreme Court in 1986 when Democrats challenged Republican-drawn congressional maps in Indiana and Ohio. In Davis v. Bandemer, plaintiffs argued that Republicans had drawn district lines specifically to give themselves an advantage at the polls. However, despite acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering could violate constitutional rights, the court failed to provide a clear standard for determining when it had gone too far.
It took nearly two decades for another major case on this topic to make its way through the courts. In 2004’s Vieth v. Jubelirer, Pennsylvania Democrats challenged a redistricting plan designed by state Republicans that they claimed gave them an unfair advantage at election time.
In Vieth v. Jubelirer, four justices argued that courts should stay out of political disputes entirely and not get involved with cases involving partisan gerrymanders because there was no workable legal standard for identifying unconstitutional ones.
However, Justice Kennedy provided some hope when he wrote: “There may be come circumstances where courts can intervene if they find specific evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.” Although Kennedy did not offer up any specifics about what legal standards might be used moving forward or how such discrimination would be measured or defined.
Finally, in June 2019, The Supreme Court issued its opinions on two cases – Rucho v Common Cause and Lamone v Benisek – regarding whether federal courts can hear challenges against partisan redistricting plans created by state legislatures.
In both cases (Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek), the Supreme Court punted on the issue of partisan gerrymandering, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority in Rucho that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” In other words, it is up to individual states to develop their own standards when it comes to redistricting.
The decision was a blow to those who had hoped that the Supreme Court would set forth clear legal standards for determining when gerrymandering had gone too far.
Despite these setbacks, some states have taken matters into their own hands by creating independent commissions to oversee redistricting. These commissions are made up of an equal number of Democrats, Republicans and independent members who work together to draw district lines based on non-partisan criteria such as population size and geographic features.
California’s Independent Redistricting Commission is one such example. Created in 2008 through a ballot initiative supported by both major parties, this commission has helped make California’s elections more competitive while reducing polarization between opposing sides.
Overall, while The Supreme Court hasn’t provided clear legal guidelines for what constitutes unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering or how they might be measured or defined, there are still steps being taken at state level which aim towards making election processes more democratic and transparent.