CNCounty News

SCOTUS to take on partisan gerrymandering

SCOTUS will examine whether redistricting maps drawn to gain partisan advantage are constitutional

In what is likely to be one of the major cases in its next term — Gill v. Whitford — the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether and when it is possible to bring a claim that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. 

While the court has repeatedly struck down district maps that rely on racial gerrymandering, it has never ruled that maps drawn to secure partisan advantage are unconstitutional.

In 2011, Wisconsin legislators redrew state assembly districts to reflect population changes recorded in the 2010 census. Map makers used a model designed to predict the likelihood that various proposed districts would elect a Republican.

The challengers argued that the redistricting map “treats voters unequally, diluting their voting power based on their political beliefs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection [and] unreasonably burdens their First Amendment rights of association and free speech.”

In the 2015 election, Republican candidates received less than 49 percent of the statewide vote and won seats in more than 60 percent of the state’s assembly districts; and, in 2014, 52 percent of the vote yielded 63 seats for Republicans.

In their challenge, they proposed a standard for determining the influence of partisan gerrymandering in the district-drawing process. Drawn from a 2015 article written by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a University of Chicago law professor and a lawyer for the challengers, the standard is based on “wasted votes”— votes in each district cast for a non-winning party’s candidate. By dividing the difference between the sums of each party’s wasted votes by the total number of votes cast, the proposed standard yields an efficiency gap.

The challengers argue that efficiency gaps over 7 percent violate the Constitution. The efficiency gap in Wisconsin was 13.3 percent in 2012 and 9.6 percent in 2014, according to the proposed standard.

A panel of three federal judges ruled in favor of the challengers, finding that the map enacted by the Wisconsin legislature was a result of partisan gerrymandering and prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) is the last time the court examined the issue of partisan gerrymandering. It failed to deliver a clear ruling on whether and when it is unconstitutional.

Four justices— then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia — wrote that courts should never review partisan gerrymandering claims because there is not a manageable process for determining when the role of politics in redistricting is impermissibly influential.

And four other justices — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — opined that courts should be able to review partisan-gerrymandering claims.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the deciding vote, agreed that the court should not review the particular case at issue, but noted that he might consider a challenge to political gerrymandering in the future if there were “a workable standard” for determining its constitutionality.

Kennedy is likely to cast the deciding vote in Gill v. Whitford.


NACo is a founder, a funder and a board member of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), headquartered in Washington, D.C. The center extends NACo’s advocacy on behalf of counties to the highest court in the land.

 

Attachments

Related News

Closeup of Capitol and flag
Press Release

National Association of Counties Releases Analysis of Government Spending Bill Impacts on Local Government

NACo applauds the inclusion of items in the two “minibus” packages for government spending reflecting support for county priorities.

Image of GettyImages-182666077.jpg
Advocacy

Congressionally Directed Spending for Fiscal Year 2025: How counties can navigate the earmarks process

Congress has begun the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations cycle. Formal guidance has not been issued by the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations Committees regarding Congressionally Directed Spending. 

Closeup of Capitol and flag
Advocacy

U.S. Congress passes second FY 2024 minibus to complete annual appropriations process

Congress voted to pass its second six-bill minibus package, completing the FY 2024 appropriations process.