Gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral district lines to advantage a party, group, or incumbent. The word dates from 1812, when a Massachusetts district approved by Governor Elbridge Gerry was said to resemble a salamander. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” leaving the issue to states and Congress.
Definition
Gerrymandering is a practice within redistricting, the drawing of district boundaries after apportionment. Two techniques are commonly named, and the Supreme Court’s Rucho opinion uses both terms: packing concentrates a group’s voters into a few districts so they win those by large margins and waste votes, and cracking spreads them across many districts so they fall short everywhere.1
Two kinds are distinguished in U.S. law. Racial gerrymandering is the unlawful use of race in drawing lines; the Rucho syllabus notes that in “one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering” cases the Court has held “there is a role for the courts”.1 Partisan gerrymandering favors a political party; after Rucho, federal courts do not decide such claims.1
Origin and history
The Rucho majority recounted the word’s origin: “In 1812, Governor of Massachusetts and future Vice President Elbridge Gerry notoriously approved congressional districts that the legislature had drawn to aid the Democratic-Republican Party. The moniker ‘gerrymander’ was born when an outraged Federalist newspaper observed that one of the misshapen districts resembled a salamander”.1 The Court noted that “partisan gerrymandering was known in the Colonies prior to Independence,” and quoted a 1907 history: “By 1840, the gerrymander was a recognized force in party politics”.1
In Rucho, decided June 27, 2019, voters in North Carolina and Maryland challenged congressional maps; “the North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Democrats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans”.1 The Court ruled 5 to 4. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh; Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.1
How gerrymandering is measured and contested
The Rucho majority’s central objection was the absence of a manageable legal standard. It wrote that fairness might mean more competitive districts, or ensuring each party “its ‘appropriate’ share of ‘safe’ seats,” or adherence to “traditional” criteria, and that “deciding among those different visions of fairness poses basic questions that are political, not legal”.1 It added that “the Constitution does not require proportional representation”.1
The dissent answered that the maps “deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,” and that they “enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters’ preferences”.1
Researchers and litigants have proposed numerical tests. One approach, described in the Rucho dissent, uses computer simulations of many maps drawn under neutral districting criteria to see whether the enacted map is an outlier; the dissent reports that “over 99% of that expert’s 24,518 simulations would have led to the election of at least one more Democrat” than the North Carolina plan.1 The majority found that none of the proposed tests met the need for “a limited and precise standard”.1
The majority also pointed to remedies outside federal courts: “Numerous States are actively addressing the issue through state constitutional amendments and legislation placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions, mandating particular districting criteria for their mapmakers, or prohibiting drawing district lines for partisan advantage,” and Congress retains power under the Elections Clause.1
Common confusions and neighboring terms
- Gerrymandering vs. apportionment. Apportionment assigns seats to states by formula; gerrymandering happens when lines are drawn within states.
- Gerrymandering vs. malapportionment. Districts of unequal population violate the one-person, one-vote principle, which federal courts do enforce, as Rucho notes.1
- Gerrymandering vs. political geography. Uneven results can arise from where voters live, not only from line drawing; the Rucho majority cites the “natural political geography” of a state as one complication.1
- Partisan vs. incumbent-protection maps. Protecting incumbents is sometimes offered as a neutral criterion, but the Rucho majority observed that “protecting incumbents, for example, enshrines a particular partisan distribution”.1
How My Vote Forward uses the term
My Vote Forward takes no side on any map or party. It uses gerrymandering as an example of how the rules for combining votes shape outcomes as much as the votes do, a theme also present in Collective priorities. Which authorities draw lines is discussed in Jurisdictions.
What My Vote Forward can and cannot do here
My Vote Forward can explain the law and the arguments on each side. It cannot draw, evaluate, or challenge district maps, and it does not rate them.
Unresolved questions
- Which definition of fairness should a redistricting body follow, and who should choose it?
- Do independent commissions produce maps that are measurably fairer, and by which measure?
- How should communities of interest be weighed against compactness and competitiveness?
Sources
- Supreme Court of the United States, Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, decided June 27, 2019 (slip opinion, including syllabus and dissent). supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
