Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
political gerrymandering raises more difficult issues. Several lower courts ruled that the issue was beyond judicial cognizance,1 and the Supreme Court itself, upholding an apportionment plan frankly admitted to have been drawn with the intent to achieve a rough approximation of the statewide political strengths of the two parties, recognized the goal as legitimate and observed that, while the manipulation of apportionment and districting is not wholly immune from judicial scrutiny,
we have not ventured far or attempted the impossible task of extirpating politics from what are the essentially political processes of the sovereign States.2
The Court in Davis v. Bandemer3 ruled that partisan gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting is justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. But, although the vote was 6 to 3 in favor of justiciability, a majority of Justices could not agree on the proper test for determining whether particular gerrymandering is unconstitutional, and the lower court’s holding of unconstitutionality was reversed by vote of 7 to 2.4 Thus, although courthouse doors were now ajar for claims of partisan gerrymandering, it was unclear what it would take to succeed on the merits.
On the justiciability issue, the Court viewed the
political question criteria as no more applicable than they had been in Baker v. Carr. Because Reynolds v. Sims had declared
fair and effective representation for all citizens5 to be
the basic aim of legislative apportionment, and because racial gerrymandering issues had been treated as justiciable, the Court viewed the representational issues raised by partisan gerrymandering as indistinguishable. Agreement as to the existence of
judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving gerrymandering issues, however, did not result in a consensus as to what those standards are.6 Although a majority of Justices agreed that discriminatory effect as well as discriminatory intent must be shown, there was significant disagreement as to what constitutes discriminatory effect.
Following Bandemer’s holding that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, the Court could not reach a consensus on the proper test for adjudicating these claims, and eventually concluded that claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering were nonjusticiable.7 First, in 2004’s Vieth v. Jubelirer, a four-Justice plurality would have overturned Bandemer and held that
political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable.8 Justice Kennedy, concurring in the Court’s judgment, agreed that the challengers before the Court had not yet articulated
comprehensive and neutral principles for drawing electoral boundaries or any rules that would properly
limit and confine judicial intervention.9 But he held out hope that in the future the Court could find
some limited and precise rationale to adjudicate other partisan gerrymandering claims, leaving Bandemer intact.10 Two years later, in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, a splintered Court again neither adopted a standard for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims, nor overruled Bandemer by deciding such claims were nonjusticiable.11 Ultimately, in Rucho v. Common Cause, issued in 2019, the Supreme Court held that there were no judicially manageable standards by which courts could adjudicate claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, implicitly overruling Bandemer’s conclusion that such claims were justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.12