Latest news with #Rucho
Los Angeles Times
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump isn't the main villain in Texas' gerrymander scheme
If you want someone to blame for the recent crisis caused by President Trump's rush to force a gerrymander of Texas' congressional districts, and the harried responses from governors in California, Illinois and New York, you can start with the Supreme Court. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, the group held, 5 to 4, that challenges to partisan gerrymandering present 'a nonjusticiable 'political question'' and thus cannot be heard in federal court. This was widely considered a terrible ruling at the time, and we're just now starting to see the consequences. Gerrymandering occurs when the party that controls a state legislature redraws its districts to maximize smooth elections and safe seats for its party members. The notorious practice isn't new — it's nearly as old as the U.S., having taken its name from Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, an early governor of Massachusetts. Despite finding the practice 'highly disagreeable,' Gerry signed off on the drawing of his state's districts in 1812 to help his party gain competitive seats in the Legislature. During this process, someone apparently remarked that one bizarrely drawn district looked like the salamander — and the name 'gerrymandering' took hold. In the March 26, 1812, edition of the Boston Gazette, the paper ran a cartoon of the district, caricatured by artist Elkanah Tisdale to introduce 'The Gerry-Mander: A new species of Monster.' For most of American history, those engaging in gerrymandering would choose between a handful of maps based on their predictions of which could yield them the greatest advantage. Today, computers can generate thousands of these clever geographical divisions, with leaders ultimately choosing the map that provides them the best chance of partisan success. Intricate algorithms and detailed data about voters allow these map drawers to engage in gerrymandering with surgical precision. Rucho vs. Common Cause arose in North Carolina, which is basically a purple state these days; presidential elections are always close, and statewide votes for congressional seats are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. However, when Republicans gained control of the North Carolina Legislature in 2010, they crafted a plan to redraw the boundaries for the state's then 13 congressional districts in their favor. State Republicans hired longtime political consultant Thomas Hofeller to generate and evaluate roughly 3,000 distinctive maps, and then selected the one they believed gave Republicans the best chance of earning significant control over North Carolina's House. In the 2018 midterm elections, Republican and Democratic candidates statewide each received roughly half of the votes, but Republicans won 10 of the 13 congressional races. This, of course, isn't unique to North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, across several elections, congressional races in districts drawn by a Republican legislature resulted in Democrats receiving between 45% and 51% of the statewide vote, yet winning just five of its 18 House seats. In Rucho vs. Common Cause, a lower federal court found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (as well as the 1st Amendment and Article 1 of the Constitution). But the Supreme Court, in a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., reversed this decision. The 5-4 majority held that federal courts 'cannot entertain a claim' and suggested that the plaintiffs 'must find their resolution elsewhere.' But this was just wrong. Gerrymandering is nothing more than a method for rigging elections. The central precept of a republican government, as the Supreme Court itself once observed, is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' However, partisan gerrymandering infamously creates a system for representatives to effectively choose their voters. As a result, each voter does not have the same opportunity to influence the outcome of an election, which is antithetical to equal protection. When the court first ruled on partisan gerrymandering, holding that federal courts could hear challenges to it, Justice Lewis Powell observed that 'the boundaries of the voting districts have been distorted deliberately' to deprive voters of 'an equal opportunity to participate in the State's legislative processes.' Some voters will benefit and will have more influence in choosing representatives. For others this will be more difficult as their votes are diluted. That is inconsistent with democracy. Even though districting is usually done at the beginning of each decade, right after the U.S. census, and even though Texas' congressional districts were drawn just a few years ago, Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott are trying to engage in redistricting for the sole goal of manipulating the composition of Congress. Trump, knowing the Supreme Court's decision means that federal courts can't stop it, has strongly urged the state to redraw its districts now to effectively create five more safe seats for Republican representatives. Not surprisingly, states with Democratic governors and legislatures are now looking for ways to respond, including redrawing districts that create Democratic seats in Congress. But some of these states, notably California and New York, already adopted the desirable and seemingly bipartisan approach of having independent commissions draw their districts to eliminate the plague of gerrymandering. The question is whether they can and should also change this practice now to combat what Texas is trying to do. There are many ways to end partisan gerrymandering. Congress could pass a law requiring that all states use independent commissions to draw the congressional districts. The Supreme Court could reconsider and overrule Rucho vs. Common Cause and go back to holding, as the law used to be, that federal courts can invalidate partisan gerrymandering. State courts can find partisan gerrymandering violates state constitutions. But none of this is going to happen now, and there is nothing to stop Texas from its efforts to carve out five more Republican districts. States controlled by Democrats need to respond; unilateral disarmament never makes sense. The loser is American democracy. And the Supreme Court is to blame. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.
Newsweek
07-08-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps. Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation. Why It Matters The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress. The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. What To Know The Supreme Court's Role In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that "such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court's refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." Kagan argued that the court's withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around. The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was "incompatible with democratic principles," he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, Is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party. Here's how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party's voters are grouped together ("packing") or split apart across multiple districts ("cracking"). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes. For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don't reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes. In the long run, it can lock in one party's power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box. Recent Reaction in Texas On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat's role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, "There must be consequences." Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters. What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: "I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements. "Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans." State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: "Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office." He added: "History will judge this moment." Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: "We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce." What Happens Next With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas' redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts. While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies. As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.
04-08-2025
- Politics
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder t old ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June."I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
