LC-15 · Politics
Partisan gerrymandering
Politicians picking voters
In ordinary words
The party that draws legislative maps can pack and crack the other party’s voters so a minority of votes produces a majority of seats.
Why people call it a crime
People call it rigging the election. The Supreme Court has said federal courts will not stop it.
A scene, not a hypothetical statute
A state is split 50–50. After the maps, one party is favored to win 10 of 13 seats for a decade. Voters did not move. The lines did.
In legal terms
In Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), the Court held partisan-gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions under the federal Constitution. Racial gerrymandering remains actionable under the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. State courts can still strike maps under state constitutions, as they have in places such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina (with later reversals), and Alaska.
The majority found no workable federal test for “too partisan” and left the issue to legislatures and to Congress, which has power over election rules but has not enacted a national ban.
Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019); Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993); Voting Rights Act § 2.
Where it stops being legal
Drawing districts to dilute a racial group’s vote, or violating a state ban on partisan gerrymandering, is unlawful. One person, one vote population rules still apply.