Voting Rights and Democracy

Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek

In Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, the Supreme Court is considering whether partisan gerrymandering by the states in the drawing of congressional districts violates the Elections Clause, the First Amendment, or the Equal Protection Clause.

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. 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. A three-judge district court, by a 2-1 vote, refused to grant a preliminary injunction preventing use of the districting plan.  Benisek then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, and the Court heard the case in March 2018. In June 2018, the Court affirmed the district court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction preventing use of the districting plan. The case then returned to the district court, which agreed with the challengers that the map violated the First Amendment.

In 2016, the North Carolina legislature drew a congressional district map that sought to maximize the election of Republican candidates. To that end, the mapmakers packed and cracked Democratic voters, seeking to ensure that Republicans would wield political power far in excess of votes cast in the polls. Indeed, the mapmakers were explicit that the map was drawn based on the view that “electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats.”  Voters and others sued, and after a trial, a three-judge district court held that the map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, a holding it reaffirmed again following the Supreme Court’s decision in Gill v. Whitford.  Both cases were appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear them in January 2019.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of appellees, arguing that partisan gerrymandering subordinates adherents of one political party and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of political association and equal protection for all persons, regardless of their political identity.  As our brief explained, the Framers of our nation’s charter established a system of government in which the people choose their elected representatives, not the other way around, writing democratic principles into numerous aspects of the Constitution.  Buttressing our Constitution’s commitment to popular sovereignty and self-governance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to associate for political ends and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that all Americans enjoy equal protection of the laws regardless of political affiliation.  Extreme partisan gerrymandering, which subordinates adherents of a disfavored political party and degrades their right to vote, cannot be squared with the text and history of the Constitution. Further, the brief explains that, in our constitutional system, the judicial branch is a constitutional check on governmental abuses of power. Thus, it is the Court’s responsibility to remedy this violation of voters’ constitutional rights.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
March 19, 2019

VIDEO: CAC Celebrates Women’s History Month

As Constitutional Accountability Center celebrates Women’s History Month, we champion the women along America’s Arc...
Voting Rights and Democracy
January 21, 2019

OP-ED: The Voting Rights Act is in tatters. Let’s honor King’s legacy by saving it.

The Washington Post
Amid all the paeans to the memory of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
November 19, 2018

OP-ED: How Congress Can Use Its Constitutional Powers to Guarantee Voting Rights for All

Take Care Blog
In collaboration with Election Law Blog, Take Care is pleased to present a series of posts offering thoughts on...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

California v. Ross; City of San Jose v. Ross

In California v. Ross and City of San Jose, et al. v. Ross, a federal district judge considered whether the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violates the Census Clause of the...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Kravitz vs. U.S. Department of Commerce

In Kravitz, et al. vs. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al., a federal district judge is considering whether the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violates the Census Clause of the Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
June 19, 2018

Symposium: The fight to vindicate our Constitution’s promise of democracy is far from over

SCOTUSblog
Partisan gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy. Under our Constitution, states cannot rig the...
By: David H. Gans