Law Commons^™

Is There Anything Left In The Fight Against Partisan Gerrymandering? Congressional Redistricting Commissions And The “Independent State Legislature Theory”, Derek A. Zeigler, Jose Urteaga

Michigan Law Review

Partisan gerrymandering is a scourge on our democracy. Instead of voters choosing their representatives, representatives choose their voters. Historically, individuals and states could pursue multiple paths to challenge partisan gerrymandering. One way was to bring claims in federal court. The Supreme Court shut this door in Rucho v. Common Cause. States can also resist partisan gerrymandering by establishing congressional redistricting commissions. However, the power of these commissions to draw congressional districts is at risk. In Moore v. Harper, a case decided in the Supreme Court’s 2022-2023 Term, the petitioners asked the Court to embrace the “Independent State Legislature …

Partisan Gerrymandering: The Promise And Limits Of State Court Judicial Review, Norman R. Williams

Marquette Law Review

In 2021, the Oregon Legislature succeeded in redrawing the state’s legislative and congressional districts, but the new redistricting plans were immediately challenged in state court as partisan gerrymanders. The Oregon Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the state legislative map, but its analysis, which accorded significant deference to the legislature’s choices, raised more questions than answers about the appropriate level of scrutiny for state redistricting plans. A special, five-judge court likewise rejected the gerrymandering challenge to the congressional map, and, while its analysis was less deferential, its decision also left unanswered the fundamental question regarding at what point a redistricting …

A Modern-Day 3/5 Compromise: The Case For Finding Prison Gerrymandering Unconstitutional Under The Thirteenth Amendment, Shana Iden

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Vestiges of slavery and systemic disenfranchisement of people of color persist in the United States. One of these remnants is the practice of prison gerrymandering, which occurs when government officials count incarcerated individuals as part of the population of the prison’s location rather than the individual’s home district. This Article argues that prison gerrymandering functions as a badge of slavery that should be prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment.

First, this Article provides background on prison gerrymandering and charts its impact through history, particularly on Black communities. Moreover, this Article analyzes how litigation under the Fourteenth Amendment has not yielded meaningful …

Rounding Up The Three-Fifths Clause: Eradicating Prison Gerrymandering In The South, Abigail N. Falk

Pepperdine Law Review

This Comment examines the phenomenon of prison gerrymandering, a practice that involves counting prisoners as residents of the counties where their state correctional facilities are located—rather than in their home communities—for redistricting and representational purposes. This practice of counting inflates the voting power of rural, white districts with large prison complexes and diminishes the voting power of minority communities. Prison gerrymandering has become especially pervasive across southern states while many of the South’s northern counterparts have eradicated this practice through legislative reform. This Comment proposes a solution to stop prison gerrymandering in the South, arguing a strategy to produce a …

The Threat Of Gerrymandering And Voter Suppression To American Democracy And Why Grassroots Activism Is The Most Viable Solution, Sabrina Pickett

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This comment examines the threat of partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and election subversion in American elections. Specifically, this comment details the development of federal voting legislation and acknowledges the limits of the executive branch to implement voter equity within constitutional structure. Consequently, this comment argues that grassroots activism combined with executive enforcement of current federal law through the Department of Justice is the most viable solution to strengthen civic engagement and uphold democratic principles.

The Roberts Court’S Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence And The Reemergence Of State Authoritarian Enclaves, Reginald Oh

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.

Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, …

Gaping Gaps In The History Of The Independent State Legislature Doctrine: Mcpherson V. Blacker, Usurpation, And The Right Of The People To Choose Their President, Mark Bonhorst, Michael W. Fitzgerald, Aviam Soifer

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

The so-called independent state legislature doctrine was the jurisprudential heart of the effort by former President Trump and allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election and was featured in the briefs for Texas v. Pennsylvania. The idea that state legislatures might have power to intervene against the popular vote for the electoral college helped animate the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Frighteningly, at the very end of the 2021 Term, the Supreme Court accepted review of a North Carolina case—Moore v. Harper—in which Republican Party legislators invoked the independent state legislature doctrine to contend that state legislators …

Epic Fail: Harkenrider V. Hochul And New York's 2022 Misadventure In "Independent" Redistricting, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In 2014, following passage in two successive legislatures, New York voters ratified amendments to the state constitution to change both the process and substantive rules governing the decennial redistricting of the state’s legislature and congressional delegation. The constitution now includes multiple new substantive requirements for districting plans, including a prohibition on the “draw[ing of] [districts] to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” It also directs the creation of an “Independent Redistricting Commission” (“IRC”) to draw up, for submission to the legislature, maps that, following an extensive process of …

Making It Harder To Challenge Election Districting, Erwin Chemerinsky

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Returning The House Of Representatives To The People: An Apportionment Amendment Proposal Advocating For The Cube Root Rule, Michael Didomenico

Et Cetera

Since the approval of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, the number of representatives in the United States House of Representatives has been capped at 435. While the “People’s House” has seen no growth since 1929, the United States population has nearly tripled since that time to 332 million people in 2022. Without additional representatives to accommodate this larger population, Americans have diluted voting power, representatives are more distant from the constituents they supposedly represent, partisanship stonewalls any productive legislation from being passed, an imbalanced Electoral College clouds the will of the people in selecting their president, and a lack …

You Can't Have Your Vote And Dilute It Too: Closing The Voting Rights Act Loophole In Gerrymandering Claims, Megan B. Kelly

William & Mary Law Review

The problem with creating and enforcing redistricting standards arises poignantly in racial gerrymandering cases that involve VRA section 2 compliance. In many ways, the rights that the Equal Protection Clause seeks to protect are at odds with the rights that section 2 seeks to protect. On the one hand, equal protection asserts a certain color-blindness, an interest in minimizing the focus on race and, in doing so, maximizing equality for all. On the other hand, the VRA suggests, and in fact requires, line-drawers keep at least one eye on race when drawing lines.

These opposing rights create a tension, which …

Deregulated Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

From the civil rights movement through the Obama administration, each successive redistricting cycle involved ever-greater regulation of the mapmaking process. But in the past decade, the Supreme Court has re-written the ground rules for redistricting. For the first time in fifty years, Southern States will redistrict free of the preclearance process that long protected minorities from having their political power diminished. Political parties can now openly engage in egregious partisan gerrymandering.

The Court has withdrawn from the political thicket on every front except race. In so doing, the Court has engaged in decision-making that is both activist and restrained, but …

Fighting A New Wave Of Voter Suppression: Securing College Students’ Right To Vote Through The Twenty-Sixth Amendment’S Enforcement Clause, Ryan D'Ercole

Washington and Lee Law Review

Throughout the 1960s, young people protested for racial and LGBTQ+ equality, women’s rights, and an end to the Vietnam war. In the process, they earned the most fundamental right— the right to vote.

Fifty years ago, in the summer of 1971, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified. In addition to lowering the voting age to eighteen, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prescribed that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” But in the fifty years since ratification, states have continued to enact laws that abridge the right to …

Redistricting Transparency & Litigation, Rebecca Green

Faculty Publications

Legislative redistricting following the 2010 Census kicked up a deluge of litigation. It did not abate. In several states, redistricting litigation extended throughout the decade, costing taxpayers millions. Factors leading plaintiffs to challenge legislative lines are multifaceted; the reasons redistricting litigation flares (and persists) are complex. One underexamined question is the extent to which process fairness in redistricting impacted redistricting litigation after the 2010 Census. At least in theory, a transparent redistricting process should produce fairer maps less likely to be challenged in court. But fights over maps result from myriad sources--the raw quest for political power, the availability of …

Federalizing The Voting Rights Act, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

In Presidential Control of Elections, Professor Lisa Marshall Manheim masterfully canvasses how “a president can affect the rules of elections that purport to hold him accountable” and thereby “undermine the democratic will and delegitimize the executive branch.” Bringing together insights from administrative law and election law, she categorizes how presidents exercise control over elections: priority setting through executive agencies, encouraging gridlock in independent agencies, and idiosyncratic exercise of their narrow grants of unilateral authority.

Manheim’s principal concern is an executive influencing elections to entrench themselves and their allies in power. Her prognosis for the future is steely-eyed, and she recognizes …

Two-Party Structural Countermandering, Benjamin Plener Cover

Articles

The popular narrative surrounding gerrymandering frames it as a performative phenomenon—achieved through the intentional manipulations of malevolent partisan actors. Efforts to curb partisan gerrymandering —which I call countermandering—have been performative, in turn, focusing on constraining these bad actors through judicial review or mapmaker neutrality. Yet performative countermandering has had limited success. Judicial and institutional constraints are only sometimes available and are often cumbersome and costly. More important, their utility is inherently limited, because gerrymandering is not only performative. It is also structural—an inevitable product of the American electoral schema itself. This paper makes the case for structural countermandering. It explains …

Geographic Gerrymandering, Benjamin Plener Cover

Articles

The leading measures of gerrymandering reflect a party-centric theory of representation based on the statewide relationship between seats and votes. But electoral districting, a traditional practice that still predominates, reflects a geographic theory of representation focused on the district-based relationship between a representative and her constituents. We propose a new approach to gerrymandering that takes electoral districting on its own terms and defines fairness geographically without reference to the seats-votes relationship. Scholars, courts, and mapmakers recognize the representational interests advanced by geographic criteria, such as preservation of local political boundaries. We ask whether an electoral map fairly distributes these benefits. …

Wisconsin’S 3/5 Compromise: Prison Gerrymandering In Wisconsin Dilutes Minority Votes To Inflate White Districts’ Population, Adam Johnson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Democracy Principle In State Constitutions, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Miriam Seifter

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, antidemocratic behavior has rippled across the nation. Lame-duck state legislatures have stripped popularly elected governors of their powers; extreme partisan gerrymanders have warped representative institutions; state officials have nullified popularly adopted initiatives. The federal constitution offers few resources to address these problems, and ballot-box solutions cannot work when antidemocratic actions undermine elections themselves. Commentators increasingly decry the rule of the many by the few.

This Article argues that a vital response has been neglected. State constitutions embody a deep commitment to democracy. Unlike the federal constitution, they were drafted – and have been repeatedly rewritten and amended …

Gerrymandering & Justiciability: The Political Question Doctrine After Rucho V. Common Cause, G. Michael Parsons

Indiana Law Journal

This Article deconstructs Rucho’s articulation and application of the political question doctrine and makes two contributions. First, the Article disentangles the political question doctrine from neighboring justiciability doctrines. The result is a set of substantive principles that should guide federal courts as they exercise a range of routine judicial functions—remedial, adjudicative, and interpretive. Rather than unrealistically attempting to draw crisp jurisdictional boundaries between exercises of “political” and “judicial” power, the political question doctrine should seek to moderate their inevitable (and frequent) clash. Standing doctrine should continue to guide courts in determining whether they have authority over a case involving a …

Say The Magic Words: Establishing A Historically Informed Standard To Prevent Partisanship From Shielding Racial Gerrymanders From Federal Judicial Review, Emily K. Dalessio

Washington and Lee Law Review

In its 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court closed the doors of the federal courts to litigants claiming a violation of their constitutional rights based on partisan gerrymandering. In Rucho, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering presents a political question that falls outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, the Supreme Court did not address an insidious consequence of this ruling: namely, that map-drawers may use partisan rationales to obscure what is otherwise an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This Note uses North Carolina as an example of a state with a long history of …

Undefeated - An Even More Ugly Example! Exhibit Panel, Sally Brown

Undefeated Exhibit Panels

Undefeated - An Even More Ugly Example! poster

"This What Gerrymandering Looks Like" display of West Virginia redistricting.

Undefeated - Elections Matter Exhibit Panel, Sally Brown

Undefeated Exhibit Panels

Undefeated - Elections matter poster

The poster draws attention to the ways that Congressional districts have been mapped inconsistently.

The Consent Of The Governed, Carter A. Hanson

Student Publications

The Consent of the Governed is a Kolbe Fellowship project investigating gerrymandering through the lens of mathematics, Supreme Court litigation, and the potential for redistricting reform. It was produced as a five-episode podcast during the summer of 2020; this paper is the transcription of the podcast script. The project begins with an analysis of the impact of gerrymandering on the composition of the current U.S. House of Representatives. It then investigates the arguments and stories of Supreme Court gerrymandering cases in the past twenty years within their political contexts, with a focus on the Court's reaction to different mathematical methods …

Not Gill-Ty: Challenging And Providing A Workable Alternative To The Supreme Court's Gerrymandering Standing Analysis In Gill V. Whitford, Colin Neal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenging Congress's Single-Member District Mandate For U.S. House Elections On Political Association Grounds, Austin Plier

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rucho For Minimalists, Benjamin Plener Cover

Mercer Law Review

In one of last term’s most consequential cases, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, 5–4, that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” This limits the power of the federal courts to address what many, this author included, consider a significant threat to American democracy: the manipulation of electoral maps to favor certain voters or candidates. Federal courts may still intervene to vindicate the one-person-one-vote principle, enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA), or invalidate racial gerrymanders. But not to limit partisan gerrymandering. Writing for the majority, Chief …

You’Ve Got (Political) Questions? We’Ve Got No Answers, Michael R. Dimino

Mercer Law Review

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court of the United States held that partisan-gerrymandering claims present non-justiciable political questions. The decision seemingly settled a controversy that had existed for decades, during which the Court was simultaneously unwilling to declare partisan-gerrymandering claims non-justiciable and unable to agree on a judicially manageable standard for adjudicating those claims. In Rucho, for the first time, a five-Justice majority definitively concluded that there are no judicially manageable standards to determine the constitutionality of partisan gerrymanders, and therefore held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear cases raising such claims.

Although the Court …

Planned Obsolescence: The Supreme Court And Partisan Redistricting, Ethan Schafer

Honors Projects

Partisan redistricting, more commonly known as gerrymandering, is the act of a political party in power using its majority to draw district maps in such a way that it stays in power or increases its power. The United States Census takes place every ten years as mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, when the maps for state and national Congress are redrawn to better allocate representation among the people. Examples of this include the two cases that are discussed in Rucho v Common Cause, the redistricting case from 2019. In this case, both the Democrat-controlled government …

The Redistricting Amendment Will Strengthen Democracy In Virginia, Alex Keena, Michael D. Gilbert, Rebecca Green

Popular Media

No abstract provided.