Gerrymandering: Legal Or Unconstitutional?

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing district lines to give a political party or group an unfair advantage in an election. While the U.S. Constitution requires that each district has roughly the same number of people, gerrymandering can result in unequal representation and violate the principle of one person, one vote. Partisan gerrymandering, in particular, has been a contentious issue in the United States, with federal courts and the Supreme Court grappling with its legality under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot decide on cases of partisan gerrymandering, leaving it to state courts to address under their constitutions and laws. However, the Supreme Court has also noted that racial gerrymandering claims can be heard in federal courts, and the Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting. The legality of gerrymandering remains a complex and evolving topic, with ongoing lawsuits and legislative efforts seeking to curb its impact on elections.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Election Systems and Gerrymandering Worldwide (Studies in Choice and Welfare)

$92.5 $109

Constitutional Law (Examples & Explanations)

$58

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$31.69

Election Law and Democratic Theory

$53.15 $62.95

HOW WISCONSIN FOUGHT GERRYMANDERING AND RESTORED DEMOCRAC: The Story of Governor Tony Evers' Battle for Balanced Representation and the End of Political ... CRIMES AND POLITICS COLLECTION Book 3)

$7.99 $15.99

Gerrymandering violates the First Amendment

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing voting district boundaries with the intention of influencing election outcomes. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot decide if gerrymandering violates the Constitution, gerrymandering can still violate the First Amendment.

Firstly, gerrymandering violates the First Amendment because voting is a form of political speech. When citizens vote, they express their political beliefs and preferences. Gerrymandering undermines this by empowering politicians to choose their voters, rather than allowing voters to choose their representatives. By drawing district boundaries to favour a particular political party or group, gerrymandering distorts the relationship between citizens and their elected officials. It suppresses the speech of some citizens while enhancing the speech of others, which amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Secondly, gerrymandering violates the First Amendment by infringing on citizens' freedom of association. By packing or cracking voters of a particular party across districts, gerrymandering penalises citizens for their association with a political party or their expression of political views. This distorts effective competition in the marketplace of political ideas and undermines the principles of democracy and majority rule.

Thirdly, gerrymandering can result in the underrepresentation of certain communities, particularly racial minorities. This can violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it reduces the weight of votes cast in more populous districts, leading to a situation where citizens' speech is dependent on government approval.

While the Supreme Court has struggled to find a single social scientific metric to evaluate gerrymandering claims, applying a First Amendment analysis provides a straightforward solution. By treating gerrymandering as a form of viewpoint discrimination, courts can resolve these challenges without the need for complex doctrinal innovation or statistical interpretations.

In conclusion, gerrymandering violates the First Amendment by suppressing citizens' political speech, infringing on their freedom of association, and distorting the competitive landscape of political ideas.

Racial gerrymandering is illegal

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of political district boundaries to benefit a particular group, such as a racial or political group. While the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering is illegal under federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting. The Supreme Court first recognized the constitutional claim of racial gerrymandering in 1993 in Shaw v. Reno, where it invalidated a North Carolina congressional district because its boundaries were drawn predominantly along racial lines.

The Supreme Court has held that a redistricting plan must be subjected to strict scrutiny if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. This means that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. The Court has also approved racially focused gerrymandering of congressional districts on the grounds that it was not pure racial gerrymandering but rather partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court has noted that partisan gerrymandering can have racial implications, as there is often a correlation between party preference and race.

The Freedom to Vote Act, a landmark piece of federal democracy reform legislation, represents a major step toward curbing political gamesmanship in map drawing. The Act would enhance transparency, strengthen protections for communities of color, and ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. It would also improve voters' ability to challenge gerrymandered maps in court.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide cases claiming that partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, it has noted that federal courts can continue to decide cases alleging racial gerrymandering. State courts can also decide partisan gerrymandering cases under their own constitutions and laws.

Federal courts' authority

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention gerrymandering, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause to require that electoral districts be drawn without discriminating against any identifiable political group. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law, prohibiting states from making or enforcing laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.

Federal courts have historically struggled to define a clear standard for adjudicating gerrymandering claims, and the authority of federal courts to intervene in gerrymandering cases has been a contentious issue. In the 2004 ruling of Vieth v. Jubelirer, a four-Justice plurality would have held that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable, meaning they cannot be decided by the courts. However, the Court has also acknowledged that claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering could be judicially reviewable.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts may not block gerrymandering, concluding that such claims are beyond the reach of federal courts. The Court's decision did not prevent voters from challenging gerrymandered maps, and they have increasingly turned to state constitutions and state courts for redress. While some state high courts have found gerrymandering claims justiciable, others have followed the federal courts' lead in declaring them political questions outside the scope of judicial authority.

The authority of federal courts in addressing gerrymandering has significant implications for electoral fairness and representation. Without clear standards and a strong federal judicial role, the ability to address gerrymandering and ensure fair electoral maps may vary across states, potentially impacting the balance of power in legislative bodies.

Explore related products

Election Law: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (Volume I)

$32.83 $35.2

100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting

$12.61 $30

Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution

$17.99 $34

Constitutional Calculus: The Math of Justice and the Myth of Common Sense

$11.99 $17.99

SCOTUS 2023: Major Decisions and Developments of the US Supreme Court

$15.71 $24.99

Line In The Sand: How Texas Democrats Took a Stand Against Gerrymandering and the Rise of Trump’s House

$4.99 $12.99

Gerrymandering violates the Fourteenth Amendment

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing voting district boundaries with the intention of influencing election results. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot decide if gerrymandering violates the Constitution, gerrymandering can still violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal protection under the law and prohibits states from denying any person "equal protection of the laws." Gerrymandering can violate this clause by diluting the voting power of certain groups, such as racial minorities or members of a particular political party. This dilution of voting power can result in these groups having less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, which is a form of discrimination that the Fourteenth Amendment seeks to prevent.

In the case of Baker v. Carr (1962), the Supreme Court held that the failure to reapportion state legislative districts to account for changes in district populations violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case set a precedent for considering the equality of size of constituencies as a factor in evaluating gerrymandering claims.

Additionally, in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court held that gerrymandering practices based on race are incompatible with the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting standards or practices that result in racial minority groups having less opportunity to elect their preferred representatives. This ruling reinforces the argument that gerrymandering can violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying equal protection to minority voters.

Furthermore, in Davis v. Bandemer (1986), a plurality of the Supreme Court held that political gerrymandering could be found unconstitutional under the equal protection clause if it consistently degrades the influence of a voter or group of voters in the political process. While the Court could not agree on the standards to adjudicate these claims, it acknowledged the possibility that political gerrymandering could violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

In conclusion, while the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled that gerrymandering violates the Fourteenth Amendment, there are strong arguments and legal precedents to support this claim. Gerrymandering can dilute the voting power of certain groups, resulting in a violation of the equal protection clause and the principles enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gerrymandering violates the principle of one person, one vote

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing voting district boundaries to influence election outcomes. The U.S. Constitution requires that each district has roughly the same number of people, ensuring equal representation. Gerrymandering violates this principle by manipulating district boundaries to favour certain political parties or groups, thereby diluting the votes of others. This practice undermines the "one person, one vote" principle, which was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Gray v. Sanders (1963).

The Supreme Court has addressed gerrymandering in several cases, including Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Court held that unequal district populations violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also recognised the need for federal courts to review redistricting plans, marking a shift from previous positions that deemed such issues non-justiciable. However, the Court has struggled to establish clear standards for evaluating gerrymandering claims, as seen in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) and subsequent cases.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot decide on partisan gerrymandering cases, stating that there is no objective measure in the Constitution to assess fairness. This ruling has significant implications for redistricting, which occurs every 10 years following the census. While the Supreme Court has left the door open for state courts to decide on partisan gerrymandering under their own constitutions, it has upheld the ability of federal courts to hear racial gerrymandering cases and those involving violations of the "one-person, one-vote" principle.

Gerrymandering undermines the principle of "one person, one vote" by manipulating district boundaries to favour certain groups, thereby diluting the voting power of others. This practice distorts equal representation and empowers politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. The impact of gerrymandering can be seen in Wisconsin, where Republicans won 60 out of 99 Assembly seats despite Democrats receiving a majority of the statewide vote. Such outcomes highlight how gerrymandering can lead to election results that are at odds with the preferences of voters.

While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled that gerrymandering violates the principle of "one person, one vote," its acknowledgment of federal court jurisdiction in racial gerrymandering cases and those involving this principle indicates a recognition of its importance. The ongoing legal debates and legislative reforms, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, reflect the complex nature of addressing gerrymandering and the ongoing efforts to protect fair representation and democratic principles.

Frequently asked questions