Case Summary

This case involved two consolidated federal challenges to congressional plans as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders: Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone. In Rucho, a group of North Carolina voters alleged their state’s congressional plan was drawn to intentionally disfavor Democratic voters, while in Benisek, a group of Maryland voters alleged their state’s congressional plan was drawn to intentionally disfavor Republican voters. Both sets of plaintiffs alleged that by discriminating against voters based on their political affiliations, the plans violated Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution, along with the Elections Clause, 1st Amendment, and 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

  • The federal district courts in both cases struck down the plans as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, and both sets of defendants appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • SCOTUS heard consolidated oral arguments on March 26, 2019.
  • On June 27, 2019, SCOTUS conclusively held that partisan gerrymandering claims presented non-justiciable political questions that federal court lacked authority to decide. The Court’s decision hinged on the need for partisan gerrymandering claims to be resolved using a “clear, manageable, and politically neutral” standard, which the Court found had not emerged despite several decades of litigation on the issue. Having previously recognized that partisan considerations when redistricting are unavoidable and constitutionally acceptable to some degree, the Court explained that partisan gerrymandering claims leave federal courts with the vague and inherently policy-based task of determining when partisan dominance is “too much” – a finding they are not equipped to make in a legally sound and consistent manner. Further supporting the Court’s conclusion were several alternative means to address the issue of partisan gerrymandering that were available, including state constitutional amendments and statutes or congressional action via the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.

Significance: Partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions that cannot be decided by federal courts.

Case Library

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina - 1:16-CV-1026 [together with League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho, No. 1:16-CV-1164]

U.S. Supreme Court - 18-422 [139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019)]