Rucho v.
Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES ROBERT A. RUCHO, et
al., APPELLANTS v. COMMON CAUSE [June
27, 2019] Chief Justice
Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Voters and other plaintiffs in North
Carolina and Maryland challenged their States’
congressional districting maps as unconstitutional
partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs
complained that the State’s districting plan
discriminated against Democrats; the Maryland plaintiffs
complained that their State’s plan discriminated against
Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged that the
gerrymandering violated the First Amendment, the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Elections Clause, and Article I, §2, of the
Constitution. The District Courts in both cases ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed
directly to this Court. These cases require us to consider
once again whether claims of excessive partisanship in
districting are “justiciable”—that is, properly suited
for resolution by the federal courts. This Court has not
previously struck down a districting plan as an
unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and has struggled
without success over the past several decades to discern
judicially manageable standards for deciding such
claims. The districting plans at issue here are highly
partisan, by any measure. The question is whether the
courts below appropriately exercised judicial power when
they found them unconstitutional as well. I The first case involves a challenge
to the congressional redistricting plan enacted by the
Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly in
2016. Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18–422. The Republican
legislators leading the redistricting effort instructed
their mapmaker to use political data to draw a map that
would produce a congressional delegation of ten
Republicans and three Democrats. As one of the two
Republicans chairing the redistricting committee stated,
“I think electing Republicans is better than electing
Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I
think is better for the country.” He further explained
that the map was drawn with the aim of electing ten
Republicans and three Democrats because he did “not
believe it [would be] possible to draw a map with 11
Republicans and 2 Democrats.” One Democratic state
senator objected that entrenching the 10–3 advantage for
Republicans was not “fair, reasonable, [or] balanced”
because, as recently as 2012, “Democratic congressional
candidates had received more votes on a statewide basis
than Republican candidates.” The General Assembly was
not swayed by that objection and approved the 2016 Plan
by a party-line vote. In November 2016, North Carolina
conducted congressional elections using the 2016 Plan,
and Republican candidates won 10 of the 13 congressional
districts. In the 2018 elections, Republican candidates
won nine congressional districts, while Democratic
candidates won three. The Republican candidate narrowly
prevailed in the remaining district, but the State Board
of Elections called a new election after allegations of
fraud. This litigation began in August 2016,
when the North Carolina Democratic Party, Common Cause
(a nonprofit organization), and 14 individual North
Carolina voters sued the two lawmakers who had led the
redistricting effort and other state defendants in
Federal District Court. Shortly thereafter, the League
of Women Voters of North Carolina and a dozen additional
North Carolina voters filed a similar complaint. The two
cases were consolidated. The plaintiffs challenged the 2016
Plan on multiple constitutional grounds. First, they
alleged that the Plan violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally
diluting the electoral strength of Democratic voters.
Second, they claimed that the Plan violated their First
Amendment rights by retaliating against supporters of
Democratic candidates on the basis of their political
beliefs. Third, they asserted that the Plan usurped the
right of “the People” to elect their preferred
candidates for Congress, in violation of the requirement
in Article I, §2, of the Constitution that Members of
the House of Representatives be chosen “by the People of
the several States.” Finally, they alleged that the Plan
violated the Elections Clause by exceeding the State’s
delegated authority to prescribe the “Times, Places and
Manner of holding Elections” for Members of Congress. After a four-day trial, the
three-judge District Court unanimously concluded that
the 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause and
Article I of the Constitution. The court further held,
with Judge Osteen dissenting, that the Plan violated the
First Amendment. Common Cause v. Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d
587. The defendants appealed directly to this Court
under 28 U. S. C. §1253. While that appeal was pending, we
decided Gill v. Whitford (2018), a partisan
gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. In that case, we
held that a plaintiff asserting a partisan
gerrymandering claim based on a theory of vote dilution
must establish standing by showing he lives in an
allegedly “cracked” or “packed” district. A “cracked”
district is one in which a party’s supporters are
divided among multiple districts, so that they fall
short of a majority in each; a “packed” district is one
in which a party’s supporters are highly concentrated,
so they win that district by a large margin, “wasting”
many votes that would improve their chances in others. After deciding Gill, we remanded the
present case for further consideration by the District
Court. On remand, the District Court again struck down
the 2016 Plan . . . . On the merits, the court found
that “the General Assembly’s predominant intent was to
discriminate against voters who supported or were likely
to support non-Republican candidates,” and to “entrench
Republican candidates” through widespread cracking and
packing of Democratic voters. The court rejected the
defendants’ arguments that the distribution of
Republican and Democratic voters throughout North
Carolina and the interest in protecting incumbents
neutrally explained the 2016 Plan’s discriminatory
effects. In the end, the District Court held that 12 of
the 13 districts constituted partisan gerrymanders that
violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court also agreed with the
plaintiffs that the 2016 Plan discriminated against them
because of their political speech and association, in
violation of the First Amendment. The District Court
enjoined the State from using the 2016 Plan in any
election after the November 2018 general election. The defendants again appealed to this
Court . . . The second case before us is Lamone
v. Benisek, No. 18–726. In 2011, the Maryland
Legislature—dominated by Democrats—undertook to redraw
the lines of that State’s eight congressional districts.
The Governor at the time, Democrat Martin O’Malley, led
the process. He appointed a redistricting committee to
help redraw the map, and asked Congressman Steny Hoyer,
who has described himself as a “serial gerrymanderer,”
to advise the committee. The Governor later testified
that his aim was to “use the redistricting process to
change the overall composition of Maryland’s
congressional delegation to 7 Democrats and 1 Republican
by flipping” one district. Ibid. . . .[The plan] was
used in the 2012 election and succeeded in flipping the
Sixth District. A Democrat has held the seat ever since. In November 2013, three Maryland
voters filed this lawsuit. They alleged that the 2011
Plan violated the First Amendment, the Elections Clause,
and Article I, §2, of the Constitution. After
considerable procedural skirmishing and litigation over
preliminary relief, the District Court entered summary
judgment for the plaintiffs . . . . II Article III of the Constitution
limits federal courts to deciding “Cases” and
“Controversies.” We have understood that limitation to
mean that federal courts can address only questions
“historically viewed as capable of resolution through
the judicial process” . . . . Among the political
question cases the Court has identified are those that
lack “judicially discoverable and manageable standards
for resolving [them].” Last Term in Gill v. Whitford, we
reviewed our partisan gerrymandering cases and concluded
that those cases “leave unresolved whether such claims
may be brought.” The question here is whether there is
an “appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary” in
remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering—whether
such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable
according to legal principles, or political questions
that must find their resolution elsewhere. Partisan gerrymandering is nothing
new. Nor is frustration with it. The practice was known
in the Colonies prior to Independence, and the Framers
were familiar with it at the time of the drafting and
ratification of the Constitution. During the very first
congressional elections, George Washington and his
Federalist allies accused Patrick Henry of trying to
gerrymander Virginia’s districts against their
candidates—in particular James Madison, who ultimately
prevailed over fellow future President James Monroe. 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. “By 1840, the
gerrymander was a recognized force in party politics and
was generally attempted in all legislation enacted for
the formation of election districts. It was generally
conceded that each party would attempt to gain power
which was not proportionate to its numerical strength.”
The Framers addressed the election of
Representatives to Congress in the Elections Clause.
Art. I, §4, cl. 1. That provision assigns to state
legislatures the power to prescribe the “Times, Places
and Manner of holding Elections” for Members of
Congress, while giving Congress the power to “make or
alter” any such regulations. Whether to give that
supervisory authority to the National Government was
debated at the Constitutional Convention. When those
opposed to such congressional oversight moved to strike
the relevant language, Madison came to its defense:
“[T]he State Legislatures will sometimes fail or refuse
to consult the common interest at the expense of their
local coveniency or prejudices. . . . Whenever the State
Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry, they would
take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the
candidates they wished to succeed.” Congress has regularly exercised its
Elections Clause power, including to address partisan
gerrymandering. The Apportionment Act of 1842, which
required single-member districts for the first time,
specified that those districts be “composed of
contiguous territory,” Congress also used its Elections
Clause power in 1870, enacting the first comprehensive
federal statute dealing with elections as a way to
enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. Starting in the 1950s,
Congress enacted a series of laws to protect the right
to vote through measures such as the suspension of
literacy tests and the prohibition of English-only
elections. Appellants suggest that, through the
Elections Clause, the Framers set aside electoral issues
such as the one before us as questions that only
Congress can resolve. We
do not agree. In two areas—one-person, one-vote and
racial gerrymandering—our cases have held that there is
a role for the courts with respect to at least some
issues that could arise from a State’s drawing of
congressional districts. But the history is not irrelevant.
The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems
and considered what to do about them. They settled on a
characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the
state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by
the Federal Congress. As Alexander Hamilton explained,
“it will . . . not be denied that a discretionary power
over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I
presume, be as readily conceded that there were only
three ways in which this power could have been
reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either
have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or
wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the
latter, and ultimately in the former.” The Federalist
No. 59. At no point was there a suggestion that the
federal courts had a role to play. Nor was there any
indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts
doing such a thing. Courts have nevertheless been called
upon to resolve a variety of questions surrounding
districting. Early on, doubts were raised about the
competence of the federal courts to resolve those
questions. In the leading case of Baker v. Carr,
voters in Tennessee complained that the State’s
districting plan for state representatives “debase[d]”
their votes, because the plan was predicated on a
60-year-old census that no longer reflected the
distribution of population in the State. The plaintiffs
argued that votes of people in overpopulated districts
held less value than those of people in less-populated
districts, and that this inequality violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
District Court dismissed the action on the ground that
the claim was not justiciable, relying on this Court’s
precedents, including Colegrove. This Court reversed. It
identified various considerations relevant to
determining whether a claim is a nonjusticiable
political question, including whether there is “a lack
of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it.” The Court concluded that the claim of
population inequality among districts did not fall into
that category, because such a claim could be decided
under basic equal protection principles. In Wesberry v.
Sanders, the Court extended its ruling to
malapportionment of congressional districts, holding
that Article I, §2, required that “one man’s vote in a
congressional election is to be worth as much as
another’s.” Another line of challenges to
districting plans has focused on race. Laws that
explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, as well as
those that are race neutral on their face but are
unexplainable on grounds other than race, are of course
presumptively invalid. The Court applied those
principles to electoral boundaries in Gomillion v.
Lightfoot, concluding that a challenge to an “uncouth
twenty-eight sided” municipal boundary line that
excluded black voters from city elections stated a
constitutional claim. Partisan gerrymandering claims have
proved far more difficult to adjudicate. The basic
reason is that, while it is illegal for a jurisdiction
to depart from the one-person, one-vote rule, or to
engage in racial discrimination in districting, “a
jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political
gerrymandering.” To hold that legislators cannot take
partisan interests into account when drawing district
lines would essentially countermand the Framers’
decision to entrust districting to political entities.
The “central problem” is not determining whether a
jurisdiction has engaged in partisan gerrymandering. It
is “determining when political gerrymandering has gone
too far.” . . . . As we summed up last Term in
Gill, our “considerable efforts in Gaffney, Bandemer,
Vieth, and LULAC leave unresolved whether . . . claims
[of legal right] may be brought in cases involving
allegations of partisan gerrymandering.” III In considering whether partisan
gerrymandering claims are justiciable, we are mindful of
Justice Kennedy’s counsel in Vieth: Any standard for
resolving such claims must be grounded in a “limited and
precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and
politically neutral.” An important reason for those
careful constraints is that, as a Justice with extensive
experience in state and local politics put it, “[t]he
opportunity to control the drawing of electoral
boundaries through the legislative process of
apportionment is a critical and traditional part of
politics in the United States.” An expansive standard
requiring “the correction of all election district lines
drawn for partisan reasons would commit federal and
state courts to unprecedented intervention in the
American political process.” As noted, the question is one of
degree: How to “provid[e] a standard for deciding how
much partisan dominance is too much.” And it is vital in
such circumstances that the Court act only in accord
with especially clear standards: “With uncertain limits,
intervening courts—even when proceeding with best
intentions—would risk assuming political, not legal,
responsibility for a process that often produces ill
will and distrust.” If federal courts are to “inject
[themselves] into the most heated partisan issues” by
adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, they must
be armed with a standard that can reliably differentiate
unconstitutional from “constitutional political
gerrymandering.” Partisan gerrymandering claims rest
on an instinct that groups with a certain level of
political support should enjoy a commensurate level of
political power and influence. Explicitly or implicitly,
a districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional
because it makes it too difficult for one party to
translate statewide support into seats in the
legislature. But such a claim is based on a “norm that
does not exist” in our electoral system—“statewide
elections for representatives along party lines.” Partisan gerrymandering claims
invariably sound in a desire for proportional
representation. As Justice O’Connor put it, such claims
are based on “a conviction that the greater the
departure from proportionality, the more suspect an
apportionment plan becomes.” “Our cases, however,
clearly foreclose any claim that the Constitution
requires proportional representation or that
legislatures in reapportioning must draw district lines
to come as near as possible to allocating seats to the
contending parties in proportion to what their
anticipated statewide vote will be. The Founders certainly did not think
proportional representation was required. For more than
50 years after ratification of the Constitution, many
States elected their congressional representatives
through at-large or “general ticket” elections. Such
States typically sent single-party delegations to
Congress. That meant that a party could garner nearly
half of the vote statewide and wind up without any seats
in the congressional delegation. The Whigs in Alabama
suffered that fate in 1840: “their party garnered 43
percent of the statewide vote, yet did not receive a
single seat.” When Congress required single-member
districts in the Apportionment Act of 1842, it was not
out of a general sense of fairness, but instead a
(mis)calculation by the Whigs that such a change would
improve their electoral prospects. Unable to claim that the Constitution
requires proportional representation outright,
plaintiffs inevitably ask the courts to make their own
political judgment about how much representation
particular political parties deserve—based on the votes
of their supporters—and to rearrange the challenged
districts to achieve that end. But federal courts are
not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of
fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that
they were authorized to do so. As Justice Scalia put it
for the plurality in Vieth: “ ‘Fairness’ does not seem
to us a judicially manage- able standard. . . . Some
criterion more solid and more demonstrably met than that
seems to us necessary to enable the state legislatures
to discern the limits of their districting discretion,
to meaningfully constrain the discretion of the courts,
and to win public acceptance for the courts’ intrusion
into a process that is the very foundation of democratic
decisionmaking.” The initial difficulty in settling on
a “clear, manageable and politically neutral” test for
fairness is that it is not even clear what fairness
looks like in this context. There is a large measure of
“unfairness” in any winner-take-all system. Fairness may
mean a greater number of competitive districts. Such a
claim seeks to undo packing and cracking so that
supporters of the disadvantaged party have a better shot
at electing their preferred candidates. But making as
many districts as possible more competitive could be a
recipe for disaster for the disadvantaged party. As
Justice White has pointed out, “[i]f all or most of the
districts are competitive . . . even a narrow statewide
preference for either party would produce an
overwhelming majority for the winning party in the state
legislature.” On the other hand, perhaps the
ultimate objective of a “fairer” share of seats in the
congressional delegation is most readily achieved by
yielding to the gravitational pull of proportionality
and engaging in cracking and packing, to ensure each
party its “appropriate” share of “safe” seats. Such an
approach, however, comes at the expense of competitive
districts and of individuals in districts allocated to
the opposing party. Or perhaps fairness should be
measured by adherence to “traditional” districting
criteria, such as maintaining political subdivisions,
keeping communities of interest together, and protecting
incumbents. But protecting incumbents, for example,
enshrines a particular partisan distribution. And the
“natural political geography” of a State—such as the
fact that urban electoral districts are often dominated
by one political party—can itself lead to inherently
packed districts. As Justice Kennedy has explained,
traditional criteria such as compactness and contiguity
“cannot promise political neutrality when used as the
basis for relief. Instead, it seems, a decision under
these standards would unavoidably have significant
political effect, whether intended or not.” Deciding among just these different
visions of fairness (you can imagine many others) poses
basic questions that are political, not legal. There are
no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for
making such judgments, let alone limited and precise
standards that are clear, manageable, and politically
neutral. Any judicial decision on what is “fair” in this
context would be an “unmoored determination” of the sort
characteristic of a political question beyond the
competence of the federal courts. And it is only after determining how
to define fairness that you can even begin to answer the
determinative question: “How much is too much?” At what
point does permissible partisanship become
unconstitutional? If compliance with traditional
districting criteria is the fairness touchstone, for
example, how much deviation from those criteria is
constitutionally acceptable and how should map drawers
prioritize competing criteria? Should a court “reverse
gerrymander” other parts of a State to counteract
“natural” gerrymandering caused, for example, by the
urban concentration of one party? If a districting plan
protected half of the incumbents but redistricted the
rest into head to head races, would that be
constitutional? A court would have to rank the relative
importance of those traditional criteria and weigh how
much deviation from each to allow. If a court instead focused on the
respective number of seats in the legislature, it would
have to decide the ideal number of seats for each party
and determine at what point deviation from that balance
went too far. If a 5–3 allocation corresponds most
closely to statewide vote totals, is a 6–2 allocation
permissible, given that legislatures have the authority
to engage in a certain degree of partisan
gerrymandering? Which seats should be packed and which
cracked? Or if the goal is as many competitive districts
as possible, how close does the split need to be for the
district to be considered competitive? Presumably not
all districts could qualify, so how to choose? Even
assuming the court knew which version of fairness to be
looking for, there are no discernible and manageable
standards for deciding whether there has been a
violation. The questions are “unguided and ill-suited to
the development of judicial standards.” Appellees contend that if we can
adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims, we can also
assess partisan gerrymandering claims. But the
one-person, one-vote rule is relatively easy to
administer as a matter of math. The same cannot be said
of partisan gerrymandering claims, because the
Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing
whether a districting map treats a political party
fairly. It hardly follows from the principle that each
person must have an equal say in the election of
representatives that a person is entitled to have his
political party achieve representation in some way
commensurate to its share of statewide support. More fundamentally, “vote dilution”
in the one-person, one-vote cases refers to the idea
that each vote must carry equal weight. In other words,
each representative must be accountable to
(approximately) the same number of constituents. That
requirement does not extend to political parties. It
does not mean that each party must be influential in
proportion to its number of supporters. As we stated
unanimously in Gill, “this Court is not responsible for
vindicating generalized partisan preferences. The
Court’s constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate
the individual rights of the people appearing before
it.” Nor do our racial gerrymandering
cases provide an appropriate standard for assessing
partisan gerrymandering. “[N]othing in our case law
compels the conclusion that racial and political
gerrymanders are subject to precisely the same
constitutional scrutiny. In fact, our country’s long and
persistent history of racial discrimination in voting—as
well as our Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, which
always has reserved the strictest scrutiny for
discrimination on the basis of race—would seem to compel
the opposite conclusion.” Unlike partisan gerrymandering
claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a
fair share of political power and influence, with all
the justiciability conundrums that entails. It asks
instead for the elimination of a racial classification.
A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the
elimination of partisanship. IV Appellees and the dissent propose a
number of “tests” for evaluating partisan gerrymandering
claims, but none meets the need for a limited and
precise standard that is judicially discernible and
manageable. And none provides a solid grounding for
judges to take the extraordinary step of reallocating
power and influence between political parties. The Common Cause District Court
concluded that all but one of the districts in North
Carolina’s 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection
Clause by intentionally diluting the voting strength of
Democrats. In reaching that result the court first
required the plaintiffs to prove “that a legislative map
drawer’s predominant purpose in drawing the lines of a
particular district was to ‘subordinate adherents of one
political party and entrench a rival party in power.’ ”
The District Court’s “predominant
intent” prong is borrowed from the racial gerrymandering
context. In racial gerrymandering cases, we rely on a
“predominant intent” inquiry to determine whether race
was, in fact, the reason particular district boundaries
were drawn the way they were. If district lines were
drawn for the purpose of separating racial groups, then
they are subject to strict scrutiny because race-based
decision-making is inherently suspect . . . A
permissible intent—securing partisan advantage—does not
become constitutionally impermissible, like racial
discrimination, when that permissible intent
“predominates.” The District Court tried to limit the
reach of its test by requiring plaintiffs to show, in
addition to predominant partisan intent, that vote
dilution “is likely to persist” to such a degree that
the elected representative will feel free to ignore the
concerns of the supporters of the minority party. But
“[t]o allow district courts to strike down apportionment
plans on the basis of their prognostications as to the
outcome of future elections . . . invites ‘findings’ on
matters as to which neither judges nor anyone else can
have any confidence.” And the test adopted by the Common
Cause court requires a far more nuanced prediction than
simply who would prevail in future political contests.
Judges must forecast with unspecified certainty whether
a prospective winner will have a margin of victory
sufficient to permit him to ignore the supporters of his
defeated opponent (whoever that may turn out to be).
Judges not only have to pick the winner—they have to
beat the point spread. . . . B The District Courts also found
partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable under the
First Amendment, coalescing around a basic three-part
test: proof of intent to burden individuals based on
their voting history or party affiliation; an actual
burden on political speech or associational rights; and
a causal link between the invidious intent and actual
burden. Both District Courts concluded that the
districting plans at issue violated the plaintiffs’
First Amendment right to association. The District Court
in North Carolina relied on testimony that, after the
2016 Plan was put in place, the plaintiffs faced
“difficulty raising money, attracting candidates, and
mobilizing voters to support the political causes and
issues such Plaintiffs sought to advance.” Similarly,
the District Court in Maryland examined testimony that
“revealed a lack of enthusiasm, indifference to voting,
a sense of disenfranchisement, a sense of disconnection,
and confusion,” and concluded that Republicans in the
Sixth District “were burdened in fundraising, attracting
volunteers, campaigning, and generating interest in
voting.” To begin, there are no restrictions
on speech, association, or any other First Amendment
activities in the districting plans at issue. The
plaintiffs are free to engage in those activities no
matter what the effect of a plan may be on their
district. The plaintiffs’ argument is that
partisanship in districting should be regarded as simple
discrimination against supporters of the opposing party
on the basis of political viewpoint. Under that theory,
any level of partisanship in districting would
constitute an infringement of their First Amendment
rights. But as the Court has explained, “[i]t would be
idle . . . to contend that any political consideration
taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan
is sufficient to invalidate it. The First Amendment test
simply describes the act of districting for partisan
advantage. It provides no standard for determining when
partisan activity goes too far. As for actual burden, the slight
anecdotal evidence found sufficient by the District
Courts in these cases shows that this too is not a
serious standard for separating constitutional from
unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The District
Courts relied on testimony about difficulty drumming up
volunteers and enthusiasm. How much of a decline in
voter engagement is enough to constitute a First
Amendment burden? How many door knocks must go
unanswered? How many petitions unsigned? How many calls
for volunteers unheeded? . . . . These cases involve blatant examples
of partisanship driving districting decisions. But the
First Amendment analysis below offers no “clear” and
“manageable” way of distinguishing permissible from
impermissible partisan motivation. The Common Cause
court embraced that conclusion, observing that “a
judicially manageable framework for evaluating partisan
gerrymandering claims need not distinguish an
‘acceptable’ level of partisan gerrymandering from
‘excessive’ partisan gerrymandering” because “the
Constitution does not authorize state redistricting
bodies to engage in such partisan gerrymandering.” The
decisions below prove the prediction of the Vieth
plurality that “a First Amendment claim, if it were
sustained, would render unlawful all consideration of
political affiliation in districting, contrary to our
established precedent. C The dissent proposes using a State’s
own districting criteria as a neutral baseline from
which to measure how extreme a partisan gerrymander is.
The dissent would have us line up all the possible maps
drawn using those criteria according to the partisan
distribution they would produce. Distance from the
“median” map would indicate whether a particular
districting plan harms supporters of one party to an
unconstitutional extent. As an initial matter, it does not
make sense to use criteria that will vary from State to
State and year to year as the baseline for determining
whether a gerrymander violates the Federal Constitution.
The degree of partisan advantage that the Constitution
tolerates should not turn on criteria offered by the
gerrymanderers themselves. It is easy to imagine how
different criteria could move the median map toward
different partisan distributions. As a result, the same
map could be constitutional or not depending solely on
what the mapmakers said they set out to do. That
possibility illustrates that the dissent’s proposed
constitutional test is indeterminate and arbitrary. Even if we were to accept the
dissent’s proposed baseline, it would return us to “the
original unanswerable question (How much political
motivation and effect is too much?).” Would twenty
percent away from the median map be okay? Forty percent?
Sixty percent? Why or why not? (We appreciate that the
dissent finds all the unanswerable questions annoying,
but it seems a useful way to make the point.) The
dissent’s answer says it all: “This much is too much.”
That is not even trying to articulate a standard or
rule. The dissent argues that there are
other instances in law where matters of degree are left
to the courts. True enough. But those instances
typically involve constitutional or statutory provisions
or common law confining and guiding the exercise of
judicial discretion. . . . V Excessive partisanship in districting
leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the
fact that such gerrymandering is “incompatible with
democratic principles,” does not mean that the solution
lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that
partisan gerrymandering claims present political
questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Federal judges have no license to reallocate political
power between the two major political parties, with no
plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no
legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.
“[J]udicial action must be governed by standard, by
rule,” and must be “principled, rational, and based upon
reasoned distinctions” found in the Constitution or
laws. Judicial review of partisan gerrymandering does
not meet those basic requirements. Today the dissent essentially
embraces the argument that the Court unanimously
rejected in Gill: “this Court can address the problem of
partisan gerrymandering because it must.” That is not
the test of our authority under the Constitution; that
document instead “confines the federal courts to a
properly judicial role.” What the appellees and dissent seek
is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power. We have
never struck down a partisan gerrymander as
unconstitutional—despite various requests over the past
45 years. The expansion of judicial authority would not
be into just any area of controversy, but into one of
the most intensely partisan aspects of American
political life. That intervention would be unlimited in
scope and duration—it would recur over and over again
around the country with each new round of districting,
for state as well as federal representatives.
Consideration of the impact of today’s ruling on
democratic principles cannot ignore the effect of the
unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the
Federal Government assuming such an extraordinary and
unprecedented role. Our conclusion does not condone
excessive partisan gerrymandering. Nor does our
conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo
into a void. The States, for example, are actively
addressing the issue on a number of fronts. . . . Other
States have mandated at least some of the traditional
districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have
outright prohibited partisan favoritism in
redistricting. As noted, the Framers gave Congress
the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering
in the Elections Clause. . . . We simply note that the
avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used
by Congress in the past, remains open. No one can accuse this Court of
having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence.
But we have no commission to allocate political power
and influence in the absence of a constitutional
directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise
of such authority. “It is emphatically the province and
duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Marbury v Madison. In this rare circumstance, that means
our duty is to say “this is not law.” Justice Kagan,
with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and
Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting. For the first time ever, this Court
refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it
thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional
violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases
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. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders
here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning
upside-down the core American idea that all governmental
power derives from the people. These gerrymanders
enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as
against voters’ preferences. They promoted partisanship
above respect for the popular will. They encouraged a
politics of polarization and dysfunction. If left
unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may
irreparably damage our system of government. And checking them is not beyond the
courts. The majority’s abdication comes just when courts
across the country, including those below, have
coalesced around manageable judicial standards to
resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Those standards
satisfy the majority’s own benchmarks. They do not
require—indeed, they do not permit—courts to rely on
their own ideas of electoral fairness, whether
proportional representation or any other. And they limit
courts to correcting only egregious gerrymanders, so
judges do not become omnipresent players in the
political process. But yes, the standards used here do
allow—as well they should—judicial intervention in the
worst-of-the-worst cases of democratic subversion,
causing blatant constitutional harms. In other words,
they allow courts to undo partisan gerrymanders of the
kind we face today from North Carolina and Maryland. In
giving such gerrymanders a pass from judicial review,
the majority goes tragically wrong. I Maybe the majority errs in these
cases because it pays so little attention to the
constitutional harms at their core. After dutifully
reciting each case’s facts, the majority leaves them
forever behind, instead immersing itself in everything
that could conceivably go amiss if courts became
involved. So it is necessary to fill in the gaps. To
recount exactly what politicians in North Carolina and
Maryland did to entrench their parties in political
office, whatever the electorate might think. And to
elaborate on the constitutional injury those politicians
wreaked, to our democratic system and to individuals’
rights. All that will help in considering whether courts
confronting partisan gerrymandering claims are really so
hamstrung—so un- able to carry out their constitutional
duties—as the majority thinks. The plaintiffs here challenge two
congressional districting plans—one adopted by
Republicans in North Carolina and the other by Democrats
in Maryland—as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
As I relate what happened in those two States, ask
yourself: Is this how American democracy is supposed to
work? Start with North Carolina. After the
2010 census, the North Carolina General Assembly, with
Republican majorities in both its House and its Senate,
enacted a new congressional districting plan. That plan
governed the two next national elections. In 2012,
Republican candidates won 9 of the State’s 13 seats in
the U. S. House of Representatives, although they
received only 49% of the statewide vote. In 2014,
Republican candidates increased their total to 10 of the
13 seats, this time based on 55% of the vote. Soon
afterward, a District Court struck down two districts in
the plan as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The
General Assembly, with both chambers still controlled by
Republicans, went back to the drawing board to craft the
needed remedial state map. And here is how the process
unfolded: The Republican co-chairs of the
Assembly’s redistricting committee, Rep. David Lewis and
Sen. Robert Rucho, instructed Dr. Thomas Hofeller, a
Republican districting specialist, to create a new map
that would maintain the 10–3 composition of the State’s
congressional delegation come what might. Using
sophisticated technological tools and precinct-level
election results selected to predict voting behavior,
Hofeller drew district lines to minimize Democrats’
voting strength and ensure the election of 10 Republican
Congressmen. Lewis then presented for the
redistricting committee’s (retroactive) approval a list
of the criteria Hofeller had employed—including one
labeled “Partisan Advantage.” That criterion, endorsed
by a party-line vote, stated that the committee would
make all “reasonable efforts to construct districts” to
“maintain the current [10–3] partisan makeup” of the
State’s congressional delegation. Lewis explained the Partisan
Advantage criterion to legislators as follows: We are
“draw[ing] the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10
Republicans and 3 Democrats because [I] d[o] not believe
it[’s] possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2
Democrats.” The committee and the General
Assembly later enacted, again on a party-line vote, the
map Hofeller had drawn. Lewis announced: “I think electing
Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew
this map to help foster what I think is better for the
country You might think that judgment best
left to the American people. But give Lewis credit for
this much: The map has worked just as he planned and
predicted. In 2016, Republican congressional candidates
won 10 of North Carolina’s 13 seats, with 53% of the
statewide vote. Two years later, Republican candidates
won 9 of 12 seats though they received only 50% of the
vote. (The 13th seat has not yet been filled because
fraud tainted the initial election.) Events in Maryland make for a
similarly grisly tale. For 50 years, Maryland’s 8-person
congressional delegation typically consisted of 2 or 3
Republicans and 5 or 6 Democrats. After the 2000
districting, for example, the First and Sixth Districts
reliably elected Republicans, and the other districts as
reliably elected Democrats. But in the 2010 districting
cycle, the State’s Democratic leaders, who controlled
the governorship and both houses of the General
Assembly, decided to press their advantage. Governor Martin O’Malley, who oversaw
the process, decided (in his own later words) “to create
a map that was more favorable for Democrats over the
next ten years.” Because flipping the First District was
geographically next-to-impossible, “a decision was made
to go for the Sixth.” O’Malley appointed an advisory
committee as the public face of his effort, while asking
Congressman Steny Hoyer, a self-described “serial
gerrymanderer,” to hire and direct a mapmaker. Hoyer
retained Eric Hawkins, an analyst at a political
consulting firm providing services to Democrats. Hawkins received only two
instructions: to ensure that the new map produced 7
reliable Democratic seats, and to protect all Democratic
incumbents. Using similar technologies and
election data as Hofeller, Hawkins produced a map to
those specifications. Although new census figures
required removing only 10,000 residents from the Sixth
District, Hawkins proposed a large-scale population
transfer. The map moved about 360,000 voters out of the
district and another 350,000 in. That swap decreased the
number of registered Republicans in the district by over
66,000 and increased the number of registered Democrats
by about 24,000, all to produce a safe Democratic
district. The General Assembly adopted the plan
on a party-line vote. Maryland’s Democrats proved no
less successful than North Carolina’s Republicans in
devising a voter-proof map. In the four elections that
followed (from 2012 through 2018), Democrats have never
received more than 65% of the statewide congressional
vote. Yet in each of those elections, Democrats have won
(you guessed it) 7 of 8 House seats—including the
once-reliably-Republican Sixth District. Now back to the question I asked
before: Is that how American democracy is supposed to
work? I have yet to meet the person who thinks so. “Governments,” the Declaration of
Independence states, “deriv[e] their just Powers from
the Consent of the Governed.” The Constitution begins:
“We the People of the United States.” The Gettysburg
Address (almost) ends: “[G]overnment of the people, by
the people, for the people.” If there is a single idea
that made our Nation (and that our Nation commended to
the world), it is this one: The people are sovereign.
The “power,” James Madison wrote, “is in the people over
the Government, and not in the Government over the
people.” . . . .Election day—next year, and
two years later, and two years after that—is what links
the people to their representatives, and gives the
people their sovereign power. That day is the foundation
of democratic governance. And partisan gerrymandering can make
it meaningless. . . . The majority disputes none of this. I
think it important to underscore that fact: The majority
disputes none of what I have said (or will say) about
how gerrymanders undermine democracy. Indeed, the
majority concedes (really, how could it not?) that
gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic
principles.” And therefore what? That recognition would
seem to demand a response. The majority offers two ideas
that might qualify as such. One is that the political
process can deal with the problem—a proposition so
dubious on its face that I feel secure in delaying my
answer for some time. The other is that partisan
gerrymandering has always been with us. The majority
does not frame that point as an originalist
constitutional argument. After all (as the majority
rightly notes), racial and residential gerrymanders were
also once with us, but the Court has done something
about that fact. The majority’s idea instead seems to be
that if we have lived with partisan gerrymanders so
long, we will survive. That complacency has no cause. Yes,
partisan gerrymandering goes back to the Republic’s
earliest days. (As does vociferous opposition to it.)
But big data and modern technology—of just the kind that
the mapmakers in North Carolina and Maryland used—make
today’s gerrymandering altogether different from the
crude line-drawing of the past. Old-time efforts, based
on little more than guesses, sometimes led to so-called
dummymanders—gerrymanders that went spectacularly wrong.
Not likely in today’s world. Mapmakers now have access
to more granular data about party preference and voting
behavior than ever before. County-level voting data has
given way to precinct-level or city-block-level data;
and increasingly, mapmakers avail themselves of data
sets providing wide-ranging information about even
individual voters. Just as important, advancements in
computing technology have enabled mapmakers to put that
information to use with unprecedented efficiency and
precision. While bygone mapmakers may have drafted three
or four alternative districting plans, today’s mapmakers
can generate thousands of possibilities at the touch of
a key—and then choose the one giving their party maximum
advantage (usually while still meeting traditional
districting requirements). The effect is to make
gerrymanders far more effective and durable than before,
insulating politicians against all but the most titanic
shifts in the political tides. These are not your
grandfather’s—let alone the Framers’—gerrymanders. The proof is in the 2010 pudding.
That redistricting cycle produced some of the most
extreme partisan gerrymanders in this country’s history.
. . . Partisan gerrymandering of the kind
before us not only subverts democracy (as if that
weren’t bad enough). It violates individuals’
constitutional rights as well. That statement is not the
lonesome cry of a dissenting Justice. This Court has
recognized extreme partisan gerrymandering as such a
violation for many years. Partisan gerrymandering operates
through vote dilution—the devaluation of one citizen’s
vote as compared to others. A mapmaker draws district
lines to “pack” and “crack” voters likely to support the
disfavored party. He packs supermajorities of those
voters into a relatively few districts, in numbers far
greater than needed for their preferred candidates to
prevail. Then he cracks the rest across many more
districts, spreading them so thin that their candidates
will not be able to win. Whether the person is packed or
cracked, his vote carries less weight—has less
consequence—than it would under a neutrally drawn
(non-partisan) map. In short, the mapmaker has made some
votes count for less, because they are likely to go for
the other party. That practice implicates the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The
Fourteenth Amendment, we long ago recognized,
“guarantees the opportunity for equal participation by
all voters in the election” of legislators. . .. And partisan gerrymandering
implicates the First Amendment too. That Amendment gives
its greatest protection to political beliefs, speech,
and association. Yet partisan gerrymanders subject
certain voters to “disfavored treatment”—again, counting
their votes for less—precisely because of “their voting
history [and] their expression of political views.” And
added to that strictly personal harm is an associational
one. Representative democracy is “unimaginable without
the ability of citizens to band together in [support of]
candidates who espouse their political views.” Though different Justices have
described the constitutional harm in diverse ways,
nearly all have agreed on this much: Extreme partisan
gerrymandering (as happened in North Carolina and
Maryland) violates the Constitution. . . . So the only way to understand the
majority’s opinion is as follows: In the face of
grievous harm to democratic governance and flagrant
infringements on individuals’ rights—in the face of
escalating partisan manipulation whose compatibility
with this Nation’s values and law no one defends—the
majority declines to provide any remedy. For the first
time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares
that it can do nothing about an acknowledged
constitutional violation because it has searched high
and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to
apply. . . . I’ll give the majority this one—and
important—thing: It identifies some dangers everyone
should want to avoid. Judges should not be apportioning
political power based on their own vision of electoral
fairness, whether proportional representation or any
other. And judges should not be striking down maps left,
right, and center, on the view that every smidgen of
politics is a smidgen too much. Respect for state
legislative processes—and restraint in the exercise of
judicial authority—counsels intervention in only
egregious cases. But in throwing up its hands, the
majority misses something under its nose: What it says
can’t be done has been done. Over the past several
years, federal courts across the country—including, but
not exclusively, in the decisions below—have largely
converged on a standard for adjudicating partisan
gerrymandering claims (striking down both Democratic and
Republican districting plans in the process). And that
standard does what the majority says is impossible. The
standard does not use any judge-made conception of
electoral fairness—either proportional representation or
any other; instead, it takes as its baseline a State’s
own criteria of fairness, apart from partisan gain. And
by requiring plaintiffs to make difficult showings
relating to both purpose and effects, the standard
invalidates the most extreme, but only the most extreme,
partisan gerrymanders. . . . The majority’s broadest claim, as
I’ve noted, is that this is a price we must pay because
judicial oversight of partisan gerrymandering cannot be
“politically neutral” or “manageable.” Courts, the
majority argues, will have to choose among contested
notions of electoral fairness. (Should they take as the
ideal mode of districting proportional representation,
many competitive seats, adherence to traditional
districting criteria, or so forth?) And even once courts
have chosen, the majority continues, they will have to
decide “[h]ow much is too much?”—that is, how much
deviation from the chosen “touchstone” to allow? In
answering that question, the majority surmises, they
will likely go far too far. So the whole thing is
impossible, the majority concludes. To prove its point,
the majority throws a bevy of question marks on the
page. (I count nine in just two paragraphs.) But it
never tries to analyze the serious question presented
here—whether the kind of standard developed below falls
prey to those objections, or instead allows for neutral
and manageable oversight. The answer, as you’ve already
heard enough to know, is the latter. That kind of
oversight is not only possible; it’s been done. . . . III This Court has long understood that
it has a special responsibility to remedy violations of
constitutional rights resulting from politicians’
districting decisions. Over 50 years ago, we committed
to providing judicial review in that sphere, recognizing
as we established the one-person-one-vote rule that “our
oath and our office require no less.” Of course, our
oath and our office require us to vindicate all
constitutional rights. But the need for judicial review
is at its most urgent in cases like these. “For here,
politicians’ incentives conflict with voters’ interests,
leaving citizens without any political remedy for their
constitutional harms.” Those harms arise because
politicians want to stay in office. No one can look to
them for effective relief. The majority disagrees, concluding
its opinion with a paean to congressional bills limiting
partisan gerrymanders. “Dozens of [those] bills have
been introduced,” the majority says. What all these
bills have in common is that they are not laws. The
politicians who benefit from partisan gerrymandering are
unlikely to change partisan gerrymandering. And because
those politicians maintain themselves in office through
partisan gerrymandering, the chances for legislative
reform are slight. No worries, the majority says; it has
another idea. The majority notes that voters themselves
have recently approved ballot initiatives to put power
over districting in the hands of independent commissions
or other non-partisan actors. Fewer than half the States
offer voters an opportunity to put initiatives to direct
vote; in all the rest (including North Carolina and
Maryland), voters are dependent on legislators to make
electoral changes (which for all the reasons already
given, they are unlikely to do). And even when voters
have a mechanism they can work themselves, legislators
often fight their efforts tooth and nail. . . . The majority’s most perplexing
“solution” is to look to state courts. What do those
courts know that this Court does not? If they can
develop and apply neutral and manageable standards to
identify unconstitutional gerrymanders, why couldn’t we? We could have, and we should have.
The gerrymanders here—and they are typical of
many—violated the constitutional rights of many hundreds
of thousands of American citizens. Those voters
(Republicans in the one case, Democrats in the other)
did not have an equal opportunity to participate in the
political process. Their votes counted for far less than
they should have because of their partisan affiliation.
When faced with such constitutional wrongs, courts must
intervene: “It is emphatically the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury
v. Madison. That is what the courts below did. Their
decisions are worth a read. They (and others that have
recently remedied similar violations) are detailed,
thorough, painstaking. They evaluated with immense care
the factual evidence and legal arguments the parties
presented. They used neutral and the majority, see ante,
at 34, this manageable and strict standards. They had
not a shred of politics about them. That is not to deny, of course, that
these cases have great political consequence. They do.
Among the amicus briefs here is one from a bipartisan
group of current and former Members of the House of
Representatives. They describe all the ways partisan
gerrymandering harms our political system—what they call
“a cascade of negative results.” These artificially
drawn districts shift influence from swing voters to
party-base voters who participate in primaries; make
bipartisanship and pragmatic compromise politically
difficult or impossible; and drive voters away from an
ever more dysfunctional political process. Last year, we
heard much the same from current and former state
legislators. In their view, partisan gerrymandering has
“sounded the death-knell of bipartisanship,” creating a
legislative environment that is “toxic” and “tribal.”
Gerrymandering, in short, helps create the polarized
political system so many Americans loathe. And gerrymandering is, as so many
Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the
most profound sense. And that means, as Alexander
Hamilton once said, “that the people should choose whom
they please to govern them.” . . . .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. |