Rucho v. Common Cause  2019

Case study gerrymandering 

Rucho v. Common Cause is a landmark 2019 United States Supreme Court case which ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question, meaning federal courts do not have the power to review or strike down voting maps drawn purely for partisan advantage.

Details of the Case

• The Vote: 5–4 decision, split along ideological lines. 

• The Majority: Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles," the U.S. Constitution provides no manageable standards for federal judges to decide when a map goes "too far".

• The Dissent: Led by Justice Elena Kagan, the dissenting judges argued that extreme gerrymandering violates basic democratic rights and that federal courts have a duty to intervene when voting maps are intentionally rigged.

The Background

The lawsuit consolidated challenges against congressional district maps in two states: 

1. North Carolina: Challengers argued that Republican lawmakers explicitly drew maps to lock in a 10–3 Republican congressional majority, even in years when the statewide vote was nearly equal. 

2. Maryland: Challengers argued that Democratic lawmakers intentionally redrew a traditionally Republican district to guarantee an additional Democratic seat.

The Impact

By removing federal courts from the equation, the Rucho v. Common Cause Supreme Court decision shifted the battle over gerrymandering to other venues: 

• State Courts: Voting rights advocates must now rely on state constitutions and state supreme courts to challenge unfair maps.

• Independent Commissions: Voters in several states have bypassed politicians by passing ballot measures to create independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions.

• State Legislation: Map-making power remains heavily concentrated in the hands of state legislatures, leaving the practice legal under federal law