Justiciability of Gerrymandering

Justiciability and Electoral Framework

Introduction to Justiciability of Gerrymandering

  • Course: P SC 104A

  • Instructor: Prof. Glenn Smith

  • Semester: Fall 2025

Federal Court Review of Gerrymandering

Numerical Gerrymandering

  • Colgrove v. Green (1946)

    • Significance: A bare majority (4-3) declined to review severely malapportioned congressional districts in Illinois.

    • Justification: The majority viewed the challenge as a non-justiciable political question.

    • Plurality Opinion by Justice Frankfurter:

    • Stated: "due regard for the effective working of our Government reveal[s] this issue to be of a peculiarly political nature, and therefore not meet for judicial determination."

    • Conclusion: "Courts ought not to enter this political thicket."

Landmark Case: Baker v. Carr (1962)

  • Distinction from Colgrove:

    • The appeal in Baker argued a violation of the Guarantee Clause instead of Equal Protection.

  • Majority Opinion Findings:

    • Found Equal Protection challenges to be justiciable.

    • Courts possess: "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" for addressing numerical gerrymandering cases.

Reynolds v. Simms (1964)

  • Majority Holding:

    • To satisfy Equal Protection scrutiny, a state’s districting must closely align with:

    1. “One person, one vote” standard: numerical equality.

    2. Compactness and contiguity of districts.

  • Note: Minor variations are permissible.

Racial Gerrymandering Federal Court Review

Constitutional and Equal Protection Standards

  • Standards for racially discriminatory government policies under Equal Protection:

    • If race is the predominant factor in drawing election districts, those districts must be:

    • Narrowly Drawn to achieve a Compelling Interest.

    • This is a difficult standard to meet.

  • Case Examples:

    • Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960): Dismantling districts that disadvantage minorities.

    • Bush v. Vera (1996): Invalidated Texas districting plan that intended to create three majority-minority districts.

Voting Rights Act

  • Racially discriminatory districting violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) if it:

    • Intentionally or effectively dilutes minority voting power.

  • Potential Changes:

    • The Court may eliminate the VRA as a viable remedy for addressing effect discrimination during the current term.

Partisan Gerrymandering and Federal Courts

Historical Context and Judicial Involvement

  • For over 33 years, a narrow majority of the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable political questions.

  • The Court did not reach a consensus regarding the relevant standard to evaluate whether partisan gerrymandering is typical or extreme.

Landmark Case: Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

  • Decision: The 5-4 majority ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions.

  • Reasoning:

    • Federal judges lack "judicially manageable and discoverable standards" necessary for adjudicating when partisan influences lead to constitutional imbalance.