28 June 2019|The Interregnum|Mohamed Elmaazi
The Supreme Court in a 5 – 4 vote ruled that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, also known as redistricting, is the practice in which a political party designs voting districts in such a way as to ensure that their political party will win elections.
Featured image via Duncan Lock/Wikimedia Commons
On 27 June 2019 the US Federal Supreme Court determined that Federal Courts cannot intervene to prevent political parties from drawing electoral districts in a manner that ensures their electoral victory. The vote was 5 to 4, with the justices who were appointed by Republican presidents siding together to conclude that [pdf, p3]:
“ partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts”.
Chief Justice Roberts: “[re]districting for some level of partisan advantage is not unconstitutional”
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decision for the majority, explained that [pdf, p3]:
“The fact that the Court can adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims does not mean that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable.”
Continuing he writes that [pdf, p3]:
“This Court’s one-person, one-vote cases recognize that each person is entitled to an equal say in the election of representatives. It hardly follows from that principle that a person is entitled to have his political party achieve representation commensurate to its share of statewide support.”
This decision was the product of two cases that made their way up the federal appeals process – Rucho et al v Common Cause and Lamone et al v Benizek et al.
While both political parties have engaged in redistricting it is a practice that is currently much more associated with Republican politicians.
Justice Roberts noted that states are [pdf, p36] “actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts”. In reversing the decision of the District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina, Roberts said[pdf, p4]:
“unlike race-based decisionmaking, which is “inherently suspect,” […] districting for some level of partisan advantage is not unconstitutional”.
A scathing dissenting opinion
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the minority, pulled no punches in her 32 page dissent arguing that:
“…the only way to understand the majority’s opinion is as follows: In the face of grievous harm to democratic governance and flagrant infringements on individuals’ rights—in the face of escalating partisan manipulation whose compatibility with this Nation’s values and law no one defends—the majority declines to provide any remedy.”
Justice Kagan ultimately concluded by writing [pdf, p72]:
“The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”
This article was updated on 28 June 2019 at 23:42 to add an additional paragraph from Justice Kagan’s dissent along with two subheadings.