Rucho v. Common Cause

Gerrymandering is basically the manipulation of electoral boundaries in order to favor a specific class or political party. Due to this, gerrymandering has been a touchy topic in the past and has become more and more relevant in recent years as elections become increasingly tense and competitive. But despite the fact that little has seemed to change with gerrymandering, there actually have been Supreme Court cases on it such as Rucho v. Common Cause.

In North Carolina, the political parties have fought over the state for decades and the voting population is generally split in evenly between Democrats vs Republicans. Prior to 2011, 7 of the voting districts favored democrats while 6 of them favored republicans. But then in 2010, a new redistricting map was issued which provided the Republicans 9 voting districts compared to the Democrat's 4. Immediately, this map was challenged and later struck down by a district court claiming it had used racial gerrymandering and required that a new map be made for review. This ruling was challenged but the Supreme Court stood with the decision and ordered a new voting map be made.

Thus, a new redistricting committee was formed by the Republican favored General Assembly (lead by State Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis) and started creating a new map without using racial data but instead attempting to maintain the same proportion of voters in each district. This would basically mean that the map would remain the same and Lewis was quoted saying, "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."

Once again, this map was challenged and struck down for being unconstitutional where it was then brought to the Supreme Court. There, voting strictly upon party lines, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court claimed that although gerrymandering may be "distasteful," "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." This basically claimed that these gerrymandering cases and any rulings on gerrymandering were not in the judicial branch's jurisdiction. Therefore, unless state legislatures move towards stopping gerrymandering, it is unlikely anything will be done.