Rucho v. Common Cause

Last updated

Rucho v. Common Cause
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 2019
Decided June 27, 2019
Full case name Robert A. Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al.
Docket no. 18-422
Citations588 U.S. 684 ( more )
139 S. Ct. 2484; 204 L. Ed. 2d 931
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss denied, Common Cause v. Rucho, 240 F. Supp. 3d 376 (M.D.N.C. 2017); redistricting plan held unconstitutional, 279 F. Supp. 3d 587 (M.D.N.C. 2018); stay denied, 284 F. Supp. 3d 780 (M.D.N.C. 2018); vacated and remanded in light of Gill v. Whitford , 138 S. Ct. 2679 (2018); judgment entered on remand, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018).
Holding
Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor

Rucho v. Common Cause,No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684(2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts. [2]

Contents

The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court's judgment on Lamone v. Benisek , a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland. [3] The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina's congressional districts, which favor the Republican Party, and Maryland's congressional districts, which favor the Democratic Party. [4]

Background

Historically, North Carolina is seen to have a near-equal split of voters between the Republican and Democratic parties, and the political parties, backed by wealthy donors on both sides, have fought over control of the state using gerrymandering for decades. [5] Prior to 2011, seven of the state's thirteen districts favored Democrats, the rest Republican. [5]

The first redistricting map for North Carolina following the 2010 census was released in 2011, which resulted in nine districts favoring Republicans. [5] A legal challenge over the new congressional redistricting map shortly followed, claiming that the map utilized racial gerrymandering which was unconstitutional under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2016, the case's hearing in the Middle District of North Carolina ruled the map was unconstitutional and gave the state's General Assembly two weeks to revise the map, to be approved by the District Court. [6] The ruling was challenged, and ultimately reached the Supreme Court as Cooper v. Harris . [7] The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's ruling in 2017. [8]

While the case was challenged at the Supreme Court, the previous chairmen of the state's redistricting committee, State Senator Bob Rucho and Representative David R. Lewis, brought in an expert to help with a new map, while a new redistricting committee was formed by the Republican-favored General Assembly and voted on seven principles for this new map. Among them, the new map would not be developed using any data on racial makeup, but that it would use political makeup to strive to keep the same proportion of voters in each district. Lewis was quoted as 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." [5] The District Court approved the 2016 map, and it has been used for both the 2016 and was set to be used in the 2018 general elections.

The 12th congressional district of North Carolina, as defined from 2013 to 2017 North Carolina US Congressional District 12 (since 2013).tif
The 12th congressional district of North Carolina, as defined from 2013 to 2017

The new 2016 maps were subject to immediate challenge by Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, and several individuals in separate lawsuits against Rucho, Lewis, and other state legislators, not only that the redistricting violated the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment but also violated two principles of Article I of the United States Constitution. [9] Of particular concern were North Carolina's 1st and 12th congressional district, which had been previously identified as gerrymandered districts in the 2011 maps, [10] and were identified to be disproportionately Democratic with the 2016 maps. The cases were consolidated at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

At this time, the Supreme Court was hearing the challenge of Gill v. Whitford , a partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. [11] In North Carolina, the defendants sought a stay of the trial pending the result of Gill, but were denied. The case proceeded with the District Court finding in early 2018 in favor of the plaintiffs that the 2016 North Carolina map was unconstitutional towards all four points made by the plaintiffs. [12] Again, the District Court ordered the legislature to draw up a new map within 14 days and enjoined the state from using the 2016 map. The defendant sought an emergency stay of the District Court's order from the Supreme Court, given the nearness of the 2018 general elections. The Supreme Court agreed, staying the District Court's order until after a decision on Gill had been made.

The Supreme Court decided Gill in June 2018, which ruled that the petitioners challenging the redistricting map in Gill did not have standing to challenge the map, and thus did not reach the merits of the partisan gerrymandering allegations. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the North Carolina District Court's ruling and directed that it review the case in light of their decision on Gill. By August 2018, the District Court issued its new decision, affirming that the plaintiffs had standing, and affirming their previous decision on the 2016 maps being unconstitutional. [13] [14] While the option of enjoining the use of the 2016 maps was offered, plaintiffs agreed that the 2018 general election was too close, and the Court allowed the 2016 maps to be used until after the 2018 elections, while requiring the state legislature to draw up new maps. [15]

Separately, Common Cause and state Democrats challenged the legislative redistricting maps drawn up alongside the congressional district maps within the North Carolina state courts. [16]

Supreme Court

The state legislators named as defendants in this case filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking if the plaintiffs have standing and if their claims on partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, and whether the 2016 map is considered a partisan gerrymandering. The Court granted certiorari, with arguments heard on March 26, 2019. The oral arguments were heard alongside those of Lamone v. Benisek , another partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland's redistricting which followed the Court's per curiam decision in Benisek v. Lamone (2018). [17] [18] [19]

The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. [20] Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. [2]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan's opinion was critical of the majority: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent." [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political question</span> Legal doctrine of political matters justiciability

In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, lies within the political, rather than the legal, realm to solve, and judges customarily refuse to address such matters. The idea of a political question is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has the authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political one. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries. For the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each decennial census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of North Carolina

North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maryland's 6th congressional district</span> U.S. House district for Maryland

Maryland's 6th congressional district elects a representative to the United States House of Representatives from the northwest part of the state. The district comprises all of Garrett, Allegany, Frederick, and Washington counties as well as a portion of Montgomery County. David Trone (D) is its current representative.

Ohio's 3rd congressional district is located entirely in Franklin County and includes most of the city of Columbus. The current district lines were drawn in 2022, following the redistricting based on the 2020 census. It is currently represented by Democrat Joyce Beatty.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues. Democrats had won 51.9% of the votes, but only 43/100 seats. Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James K. Bredar</span> American judge (born 1957)

James Kelleher Bredar is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. He previously served as a United States magistrate judge of the same court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when United States District Court judges must refer cases to three-judge panels. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that federal district courts are required to refer cases to a three-judge panel when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled 5–3 that the North Carolina General Assembly used race too heavily in re-drawing two Congressional districts following the 2010 Census.

Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in North Carolina</span> USA gerrymandering controversy (2010-)

Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Wisconsin</span>

Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each enacted by panels of United States federal judges; the 1964 and 2022 maps were enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The 2010 United States redistricting cycle took place following the completion of the 2010 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies re-drew state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives also drew new districts for that legislative body. The resulting new districts were first implemented for the 2011 and 2012 elections.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. It's the first partisan gerrymandering case taken by the Supreme Court after its landmark decision in Rucho v. Common Cause which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, and the first racial gerrymandering case after the court's landmark decision in Allen v. Milligan.

References

  1. ↑ Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence (June 27, 2019). "In major elections ruling, U.S. Supreme Court allows partisan map drawing". Reuters . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  2. 1 2 3 de Vogue, Ariane (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue". CNN . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  3. ↑ "Rucho v. Common Cause". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 26, 2019.
  4. ↑ Perticone, Joe (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court rules 5-4 to allow partisan gerrymandering in congressional maps in landmark case". Insider . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Wines, Michael; Fausset, Richard (August 27, 2018). "North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Gerrymandered Congressional Map. Again". The New York Times . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  6. ↑ Jenkins, Colleen (November 29, 2016). "Federal judges order North Carolina to redraw legislative districts". Reuters . Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  7. ↑ Cooper v. Harris ,No. 15-1262 , 581 U.S. ___(2017).
  8. ↑ Newkirk II, Van (May 22, 2017). "The Supreme Court Finds North Carolina's Racial Gerrymandering Unconstitutional". The Atlantic . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  9. ↑ Morrill, Jim (August 5, 2016). "Common Cause challenges partisan gerrymandering in NC". The Charlotte Observer . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  10. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 22, 2017). "Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias". The New York Times . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  11. ↑ Gill v. Whitford ,No. 16-1161 , 585 U.S. ___(2018).
  12. ↑ Common Cause v. Rucho, 279F. Supp. 3d587 ( M.D.N.C. 2018).
  13. ↑ Common Cause v. Rucho, 318F. Supp. 3d777 ( M.D.N.C. 2018).
  14. ↑ Jacobs, Rusty (August 28, 2018). "North Carolina Congressional Elections Thrown Into Chaos After Court Ruling". NPR . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  15. ↑ Dubeck, James (September 5, 2018). "North Carolina Can Use Gerrymandered Map In November, Court Rules". NPR . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  16. ↑ Wilson, Reid (November 21, 2018). "Dems take new approach in NC gerrymandering suit". The Hill . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  17. ↑ Benisek v. Lamone ,No. 17-333 , 585 U.S. ___(2018).
  18. ↑ Savage, David (January 4, 2019). "Supreme Court to decide on partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  19. ↑ Barnes, Robert (March 26, 2019). "Brett Kavanaugh the new player as Supreme Court returns to partisan gerrymandering". The Washington Post . Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  20. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Bar Partisan Gerrymandering". The New York Times . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.