![handle is hein.crs/govbagj0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional ______
*Research Service
Partisan Gerrymandering Claims Not Subject
to Federal Court Review: Considerations
Going Forward
July 5, 2019
Partisan gerrymandering, the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political
party and entrench a rival party in power, is an issue that has vexed the federal courts for more than three
decades. On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, ruled that claims of unconstitutional
partisan gerrymandering are not subject to federal court review because they present non-justiciable
political questions, removing the issue from the federal court's purview. In Rucho v Common Cause and
Lamone v. Benisek (hereafter Rucho) the Court viewed the Elections Clause of the Constitution as solely
assigning disputes about partisan gerrymandering to the state legislatures, subject to a check by the U.S.
Congress. Moreover, in contrast to one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering claims, the Court
determined that no test exists for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims that is both judicially
discernible and manageable. However, the Court suggested that Congress, as well as state legislatures,
could play a role in regulating partisan gerrymandering.
To contextualize the ruling, this Sidebar begins with a brief review of prior Supreme Court precedent and
arguments over partisan gerrymandering, before addressing the issues considered by the Court in Rucho.
(An earlier Legal Sidebar discussed this background in greater depth.) Next, the Sidebar discusses the
Court's ruling, before concluding with a discussion of its implications and legislative options for
Congress.
Background
Prior to the 1960s, the Supreme Court had determined that challenges to redistricting plans presented non-
justiciable political questions that were most appropriately addressed by the political branches of
government, not the judiciary. In 1962, however, in the landmark ruling of Baker v Car; the Court held
that a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan is justiciable, identifying factors for determining
when a case presents a non-justiciable political question, including a lack of [a] judicially discoverable
and manageable standard[] for resolving it. Since then, while invalidating redistricting maps on equal
protection grounds for other reasons-based on inequality of population among districts or one-person,
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10324
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govbagj0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most