Term: 2018
Docket: 18-422
Rucho v. Common Cause
- Pro
18-422 RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE DECISION BELOW: 318 F.Supp.3d 777 JURISDICTION POSTPONED 1/4/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: Earlier this year, while Gill v. Whitford was pending before this Court, a three- judge district court invalidated North Carolina's 2016 congressional districting map as a partisan gerrymander. After Gill was handed down, this Court vacated that decision and remanded for further consideration in light of Gill. That period of reconsideration did not last long. In the decision below, the district court largely readopted its previous reasoning and became the first post-Gill court to divine a justiciable test-in fact, four tests-and invalidate a legislatively enacted map as a partisan gerrymander. Although plaintiffs here, like those in Gill , sought to vindicate only generalized partisan preferences , the court concluded they had standing. The court then found justiciable standards for partisan gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and (uniquely in the history of redistricting litigation) the Elections Clauses of Article I. The court found the 2016 map to violate each of those newly articulated tests and enjoined the State from using the map after the November 2018 elections. The questions presented are: 1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims. 2. Whether plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. 3. Whether North Carolina's 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 1:16-CV-1026
In the case of Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering - a practice where state legislatures draw voting districts in a way that favors one political party over another. The plaintiffs, including advocacy group Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, argued that such gerrymandering violated constitutional principles by diluting their votes. However, in a 5-4 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that these were political questions beyond its reach as they involved issues left to state legislatures or Congress under the Constitution's Elections Clause and Guarantee Clause. This ruling effectively removed federal courts from policing partisan redistricting efforts.
In the dissenting opinion for Rucho v. Common Cause, Justice Elena Kagan argued that partisan gerrymandering is a threat to American democracy and violates constitutional principles of equal representation. She asserted that the majority's decision abdicates the Court's responsibility to protect citizens' rights by allowing politicians to choose their voters instead of vice versa. According to her, this undermines both individual voting rights and collective political structures as it allows politicians in power to entrench themselves there indefinitely, regardless of popular will or public interest. She also contended that courts are capable of setting limits on partisan gerrymandering using manageable standards without overstepping into political territory - something which has been done successfully at state level already.
