Every 10 years states redraw their legislative and congressional districts to adjust with the census. When this is done honestly and honorably it ensures that the population of each district is roughly equal, is more representative of the state's population, and strengthens the democratic values of the United States of America. This sadly is not how redistricting always works. Often the party in power draws the lines of the district to help maintain or expand their power.
Key Supreme Court Case: Wesberry vs Sanders(1964)
For example in 1964 members of the 5th congressional district of Georgia filed a lawsuit claiming that the districts drawn by the party in power violated their right to vote by drawing the districts with unequal populations. Their congressional district’s population was two to three times greater than that of some other congressional districts in the State. This made each vote from the fifth district equivalent to ½ or ⅓ that from others. When this case reached the Supreme Court ( WESBERRY v SANDERS, United States Supreme Court 376 U.S.1 (1964)) The Supreme Court ruled that when Article I, section 2, of the constitution, reads “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” it means that, one person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. Since then states have been required to make congressional districts approximately equal in population. This was a huge victory for democracy in the United States but was only one victory in a series of losses.
Types of Gerrymandering:
Today there are two primary categories of gerrymandering, both destined to weaken the power of certain voting groups.
Cracking is where one party’s votes are diluted among several districts, so it loses by a small margin.
Packing is where one party’s votes are concentrated into a few districts to limit the number of districts they win.
Modern Cases of Partisan Gerrymandering:
One of the most notable gerrymandering cases was the Supreme Court Case of RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE (2019). This case was an example of how partisan gerrymandering can affect all voters. In North Carolina, the republican legislature put into action a redistricting plan that would ensure 9 Republican and 3 democrat winners. Separately Maryland Democrats put into action a plan to flip a district by moving roughly 360,000 voters out of that district and 350,000 new voters in. Voters in both states challenged these districting plans in the Supreme Court. With a 5-4 Ruling the Federal Judiciary decided that it has no authority to prevent state officials from drawing districts to preserve or expand their party's power.
In another similar case a few years prior, Wisconsin voters elected for the first time in over 40 years a Republican majority in the Public Assembly and Senate. To secure their majority under the most likely scenarios they redrew the districts. Once again the federal court decided they couldn’t prevent the state from partisan gerrymandering because it didn't violate the “one person one-vote rule”. (GILL v WHITFORD, 2018)
Called to Action:
Since the federal courts have limited their role in addressing partisan gerrymandering, it’s up to us to push for change at the state level. Solutions like independent redistricting commissions and proportional gerrymandering are within our reach, but they require informed and active citizens to advocate for them. Get involved, educate yourself, and take action to protect our democratic values.
Find Your Representative | house.gov
My Congressional District (census.gov)
Works Cited
United States: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report. Freedom House. (n.d.). https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2024
RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE, United States Supreme Court
139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) 18-422 Rucho v. Common Cause (06/27/2019) (supremecourt.gov)GILL v WHITFORD, United States Supreme Court 585 US_(2018) 16-1161 Gill v. Whitford (06/18/2018) (supremecourt.gov)
 |
|