About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (March 18, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govzij0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Supreme Court Once Again Considers Partisan Gerrymandering: Implications and Legislative Options March 18, 2019 Is there a standard for determining whether a redistricting map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander? Or, do claims of partisan gerrymandering raise political questions that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a federal court (i.e., are non-justiciable)? On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases-one from Maryland (Lamone v. Benisek) and another from North Carolina (Rucho v Common Cause)-presenting these questions. In Lamone and Rucho, the Court is presented with the issue of partisan gerrymandering for the second consecutive term. Last year, the Supreme Court considered claims of partisan gerrymandering raising nearly identical questions to those currently before the Court, but ultimately issued narrow rulings on procedural grounds specific to those cases. Last year's rulings were only the latest in which the Court considered, but ultimately did not directly answer, the question of whether a standard exists for ascertaining unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. In prior cases presenting this issue, Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote, leaving open the possibility that claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering are justiciable under a yet to be determined standard. Lamone and Rucho, however, are the first partisan gerrymandering cases that the Court has considered since Justice Kennedy retired from the Court last year. Accordingly, the Court's rulings could signal how the Court will approach an issue that could significantly affect how congressional and state legislative boundaries are drawn in the future. This Sidebar begins by briefly discussing Supreme Court precedent addressing partisan gerrymandering, before examining the lower court rulings from Maryland and North Carolina presently before the Court. The Sidebar concludes by previewing the arguments before the Court, and notes possible outcomes and implications of a ruling, including legislative options for Congress. Supreme Court Precedent 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 Carr the Court held that a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan is justiciable, identifying factors for determining Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10276 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most