Ending Gerrymandering: Constitutional Amendment Solution

Gerrymandering is a form of political manipulation that has been used in the United States for decades, where district boundaries are drawn to favour one political party over another. This practice has been challenged in numerous court cases, with some states adopting constitutional amendments to prohibit gerrymandering. Despite this, gerrymandering continues to be a pervasive issue, with political parties exploiting racial segregation and advanced data analytics to gain an advantage in elections. The Supreme Court has struggled to establish a clear standard for evaluating gerrymandering claims, often avoiding strong rulings to prevent political bias. This has resulted in ongoing debates about the role of judicial review and the need for constitutional amendments to address gerrymandering effectively.

Explore related products

Redistricting: The Most Political Activity in America

$35.1 $39

Charter School City: What the End of Traditional Public Schools in New Orleans Means for American Education

$23 $19.99

Political Geometry: Rethinking Redistricting in the US with Math, Law, and Everything In Between

$37.99 $37.99

Bill Ratliff: A Profile of Courage and Leadership in American Politics

$38.31 $50.99

10 Steps to Repair American Democracy: A More Perfect Union

$29.49 $59.99

Policing the Racial Divide

$34 $34

Gerrymandering and the First Amendment

Gerrymandering is a long-standing practice in the United States, dating back to the nation's earliest days. It involves manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favour a particular political party or group. While gerrymandering has evolved with the use of advanced technology, it remains a highly controversial issue that has been challenged in numerous court cases.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably. Partisan gerrymandering, which aims to dilute the voting power of certain groups, has been argued to violate these fundamental rights. Voting is an act of political expression, and when gerrymandering is used to predetermine election outcomes, it suppresses the speech of some citizens while amplifying that of others.

In recent years, several cases have been brought before the Supreme Court, challenging partisan gerrymandering on First Amendment grounds. For example, in Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause, amicus briefs were filed arguing that the First Amendment prohibits state legislatures from discriminating against voters with opposing views during redistricting. The briefs asserted that redistricting is subject to ordinary First Amendment principles, and any unconstitutional actions by states should be subject to judicial scrutiny.

Another case, Gill v. Whitford, centred on the applicability of the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. Professors of election and constitutional law argued that the right to freedom of association goes beyond protecting the right to join a political group. It also prohibits state regulations that disproportionately burden a political group's ability to influence elections, which is precisely what occurs in partisan gerrymandering.

While the Supreme Court has struggled to find a "judicially manageable standard" to evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims, applying a First Amendment analysis offers a straightforward solution. By treating gerrymandering as a form of viewpoint discrimination, courts can uphold the principle that citizens' speech should not be subject to government approval or disapproval.

In conclusion, partisan gerrymandering undermines the democratic process by silencing the voices of certain voters and distorting the relationship between citizens and their elected officials. The First Amendment provides a strong legal framework to challenge these practices and ensure that all citizens' political speech and association rights are protected.

Gerrymandering and the Fourteenth Amendment

Gerrymandering is a practice that has been used in the United States for decades, and it continues to be a contentious issue. The term "gerrymandering" comes from Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention. While gerrymandering has been used by both major political parties, it has been criticised as a way to dilute the voting power of certain groups, particularly minorities.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens. Partisan gerrymandering, or the drawing of legislative district lines to favour one political party over another, has been a frequent issue before the US courts, especially in the context of equal protection and voting rights.

In the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer, the US Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting is justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling represented a shift in the Court's position, as previously, some justices had denied that gerrymandering was a constitutional violation. However, the Court has struggled to reach a consensus on a clear standard for determining when gerrymandering is unconstitutional, leaving the door open for future judicial review.

In recent years, several cases involving gerrymandering and voting rights have reached the Supreme Court. For example, in Allen v. Milligan, the Court ruled that Alabama's redistricting map violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and required at least one additional majority-minority district to ensure equal representation. Similarly, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court upheld a lower court decision that Louisiana must redraw its map to include two majority-minority districts under the VRA. These cases highlight the ongoing legal battles over gerrymandering and the importance of ensuring equal representation for all voters.

While the Supreme Court has played a significant role in addressing gerrymandering, state courts and legislatures have also taken action. For instance, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state's 2021 congressional map as an impermissible partisan gerrymander, and Florida has adopted constitutional amendments prohibiting gerrymandering in redistricting. These efforts demonstrate a recognition of the need to end gerrymandering and ensure fair and equitable representation for all citizens.

Gerrymandering and the Fifteenth Amendment

Gerrymandering is a practice that has been used in the United States to reduce the voting impact of minorities and has been challenged as a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude.

One notable example of gerrymandering being challenged under the Fifteenth Amendment is Gomillion v. Lightfoot, a 1960 case in which the Court found a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment in the redrawing of a municipal boundary line in Tuskegee, Alabama. The boundary line was redrawn from a square into a 28-sided figure that excluded all but a few of the 400 Black voters in the city, thereby continuing white domination of municipal elections. The Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the apportionment and districting of state legislatures to be based solely on population, and found that the redrawing of the boundary line violated this principle.

Another case that addressed gerrymandering and the Fifteenth Amendment is City of Mobile v. Bolden, which involved a challenge to an at-large electoral system. A plurality of the Court sought to restrict the Fifteenth Amendment to cases of direct denial or abridgment of the right to register and vote, excluding dilution claims. However, three Justices disagreed and suggested they would have applied the Fifteenth Amendment to the vote dilution claim.

In addition to these cases, there have been other instances where gerrymandering has been challenged under the Fifteenth Amendment. For example, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the state must redraw its district maps to include two majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The new maps were then challenged by a group of non-minority voters on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

While the Fifteenth Amendment has been invoked to challenge gerrymandering that targets racial minorities, the Fourteenth Amendment has been the predominant constitutional authority in such cases. This is due in part to the requirement of discriminatory motivation in Fifteenth Amendment cases, which has made it more difficult to bring successful challenges under this amendment.

Explore related products

Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting

$14.99 $18

Race, Voting, Redistricting and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations of the Fifteenth Amendment (Controversies in Constitutional Law)

$475

Dividing Classes: How the Middle Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School Advantage

$27.9 $55.99

Election Law and Democratic Theory

$53.15 $62.95

The Partisan Court: The Era of Political Partisanship on the U.S. Supreme Court

$99 $110

A Voters' Rights Amendment: Beyond Citizens United

$9.95

Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act

Gerrymandering is a threat to American democracy, and it has been a problem since the nation's earliest days. The practice involves manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favour a particular political party. This can result in votes not translating into political power, as seen in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where the party that won the majority of state legislative seats in the 2018 elections received only a minority of the total statewide vote.

The Constitution and the Voting Rights Act prohibit racial discrimination in redistricting. However, in practice, gerrymandering often targets communities of colour, diluting their voting power. For example, in South Carolina, Black voters challenged a reconfigured district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, but the Supreme Court ruled that they had not proven the map's lines were based on race rather than party affiliation.

The Supreme Court has generally avoided strong rulings on gerrymandering cases to avoid appearing politically biased. However, in Davis v. Bandemer (1986), the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting is justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) also impacted gerrymandering by rendering Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act inoperable, removing federal jurisdiction over matters arising from gerrymandering.

To address gerrymandering, several states, including California, Arizona, and Washington, have established non-partisan redistricting commissions or independent citizen-led commissions to draw voter-determined districts. These commissions aim to ensure districts reflect the will of the people and fully represent underrepresented communities. Other solutions include using metric geometry to measure gerrymandering and implementing federal legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act, which would ban partisan gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering and state-level legislation

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing political maps for partisan gain. While both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering, Republicans have been more explicit in their use of the practice. North Carolina, for example, has a slight Republican lean in presidential elections, but gerrymandering has resulted in 10 out of 14 congressional seats being held by Republicans.

At the state level, there have been several attempts to address gerrymandering through legislation and legal challenges. Some states, such as Florida, have adopted constitutional amendments that prohibit gerrymandering and require redistricting plans to be politically neutral. In 2021, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Montana's legislative redistricting committees voted to draw new legislative maps that avoided prison gerrymandering, and a bill was passed in 2023 to prohibit the practice in future cycles.

Other states have established independent redistricting commissions to reduce the political influence on the process. For example, Arizona challenged the constitutionality of a non-partisan commission for redistricting, while California, Illinois, and New York have considered mid-decade redistricting to increase Democratic representation.

Legal challenges have also been mounted against gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order a new plan to remedy gerrymandering. However, the Court has also made it more difficult to challenge gerrymandering, with rulings that allow states to defend racially discriminatory maps on political grounds.

Despite these challenges, gerrymandering remains a persistent issue in American politics, and it is clear that substantive reforms are needed to address it effectively.

Frequently asked questions