The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rucho v. Common Cause was the latest in a line of opinions regarding reviewability of gerrymandering claims related to the constitutionally required decennial state redistricting process. In Rucho, the Court altered the course of future electoral processes and held that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable. In doing so, the Court failed to consider obvious pitfalls in limiting the type of review available for these gerrymandering claims. In particular, the Court failed to understand the gravity of the impact such a decision would have on minority voting power and discarded one of the few structural safeguards our democratic process has in place to ensure fair elections. Chained to the idea that review of the redistricting cycle should remain with the state, the Court overestimated the power of state courts and the democratic process to mitigate partisan bias in the redistricting process. If left unchecked, these state legislatures, fueled by the hyper-partisan politics of our day, could erode all faith in the electoral process and dilute votes to the point of giving them little value to the electoral process, depending on the party of the candidate.
Vince Mancini, The Court’s Gerrymandering Conundrum: How Hyper-partisanship in Politics Alters the Rucho Decision, 2022 URL 1135 (2022). https://doi.org/10.26054/0d-apyd-xca3