Voting Rights and Democracy

Benisek v. Lamone

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Case Summary

In 2011, the Maryland legislature drew the 6th congressional District to dilute the voting strength of Republican voters, seeking to flip the district from Republican to Democratic and thereby create a seventh seat in the Democratic congressional delegation.  To achieve this end, the mapmakers shuffled hundreds of thousands of citizens either out of or into the 6th District, using sophisticated political data to produce an additional Democratic seat. O. John Benisek, along with other Republican party affiliated voters, sued Maryland election officials, claiming that the mapmakers had gerrymandered the state’s 6th congressional District and subordinated Republican voters. The district court, by a 2-1 vote, refused to grant a preliminary injunction preventing use of the districting plan.  Benisek appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court accepted his appeal for review.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of bipartisan current and former members of Congress in support of Benisek. In our brief, we explain that the First Amendment does not permit the government to subordinate voters on account of their political affiliation. Our Constitution’s Framers created a system of self-governance in which freedom of speech and association were guaranteed to all, and recognized that the right to elect members of the government is crucial to this system. Partisan gerrymandering, whether the aim is to subordinate Democratic or Republican voters, is viewpoint discrimination that runs afoul of these First Amendment protections. Further, the brief explains that, in our constitutional system, the judicial branch is a constitutional check on government abuses of power. Thus, it is the Court’s responsibility to remedy this violation of voters’ First Amendment rights.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
February 9, 2018

OP-ED: Pa. Republicans are assaulting the rule of law in gerrymander fight

Harrisburg Patriot-News (
Republicans in control of the PA legislature gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, seeking to entrench their party...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 9, 2014

The Future of Voting Rights

Host: Federalist Society
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting...
Participants: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court is considering whether Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering of its State Assembly districts violates the guarantees contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 28, 2017

Don’t purge voters for choosing not to vote

Akron Beacon Journal
President Donald Trump’s so-called election integrity commission — stocked with voting rights foes — wants...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2017

OP-ED: Justice Kennedy, The First Amendment, and Partisan Gerrymandering

Take Care Blog
Over the course of three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy has developed...
By: David H. Gans