An initial ruling
​exacerbates the problem.

In its first foray into redistricting (Wood v. Broom), the Court ruled that Apportionment Acts only applied to the decennial census period for which they were written, effectively voiding a century’s worth of redistricting regulations.  States were suddenly free to draw districts in any shape, or switch to at-large voting.

“...the requirements [prior Apportionment Acts] had contained as to the compactness, contiguity, and equality in population of districts did not outlast the apportionment
to which they related.” - Chief Justice Charles Hughes (front row center),
writing the majority opinion in Wood v. Broom (1932).
(National Museum of American History, 1932).

The Court remains largely silent on
redistricting, with one notable exception.

For decades in the mid-1900’s, the Court avoided ruling on the merits of redistricting cases, viewing it
as the domain of state legislatures.  However, the Court didn’t hesitate to intervene in cases of
​“racial gerrymandering,” where district lines were being drawn to disenfranchise minority voters.

---

In this audio clip below, Fred Gray, attorney for the petitioners in the racial
gerrymandering case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), argues before the Supreme Court.
(Biography.com).

Illustration of the electoral district in the Gomillion v. Lightfoot case, which
Alabama redrew from a simple square (whose residents were 79%
African-American) to a 28-sided figure (whose residents were 100% White).
(Tufts DPS, 1960).

"The Court unanimously [concluded] that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief if they could demonstrate that the change in boundaries had in fact been racially motivated.  Gomillion was the first case in which the Court indicated that the Constitution imposed significant limitations on the authority of the states to draw electoral districts.”

​- – Earl Maltz, Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School, “Power In Numbers:  Reapportionment and the Constitution"

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, in concert with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also helped
define “lawful” racial gerrymanders that preserve the influence of minority voters --
such as Illinois’ 4th congressional earmuff-shaped district, pictured above.
(United States Department of the Interior via Huffington Post, 2018 )

"The question that was faced back in 1992, when the [Illinois 4th congressional] district was first created, was 'How do you simultaneously give representation to African-Americans and to Latinos?'  You can't do it just by drawing a district that would be in compact form."

--  Michael McDonald, redistricting expert and Associate Professor at the University of Florida, explaining why the gerrymandered 4th district is actually legal, since it unites two pockets of Latino voters which were separated by a largely African-American community.

The Court repeatedly declines to rein in
​partisan political gerrymandering.

The Court passes on numerous opportunities to rule on the legality of districts which are drawn to favor a
particular political party.  Ironically, another triumph in the original design of the U.S. government -- the
creation of an independent, apolitical judiciary -- dissuades the Court from adjudicating the issue.  Justices
fear that, absent an objective legal standard for determining when district boundaries cross the line between
permissible and unconstitutional, any decision they render to restrict this behavior could be
​viewed as a politically-motivated opinion.

"Chief Justice [Roberts] articulated this concern in oral argument last year in Gill v. Whitford, saying he worried that every time they invalidate a map it will be perceived as just an effort to help the Republicans or the Democrats."  ​

- Paul M. Smith., Professor of Law at Georgetown University and attorney for the appellate in the 2018 Gill v. Whitford Supreme Court case (from student-conducted e-mail interview on February 9, 2019)

This congressional district map from Pennsylvania was the focus of
Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), a notable Supreme Court political gerrymandering case.
(Pennsylvania Senate, 2004).

"After the 2000 census reduced the size of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation by two members, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a redistricting plan that clearly benefited Republican candidates.  Several members of the Democratic party sued in federal court, claiming that the plan was unconstitutional.”

​- Oyez Case Summary of Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)

"In a split decision that had no majority opinion, the Court decided not to intervene in this case because no appropriate judicial solution could be found. Justice Antonin Scalia, for a four-member plurality, wrote that the Court should declare all claims related to political (but not racial) gerrymandering nonjusticiable.”

​- Oyez Case Summary of Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)

In the Supreme Court audio recording above, Justice Scalia explains the Court’s decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer to not intervene in political gerrymandering. (Federalist Society, 2013).

Manipulation of district lines becomes increasingly sophisticated.

With partisan gerrymandering left largely unchecked by both the Legislative and Judicial branches, the practice continued and actually became more precise and harmful.  As a result, the People’s House is,
​tragically, not the mirror of the public that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Professor A. E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law, describing ​
the modern,​ precise ​science of drawing district lines for partisan advantage.
​(Excerpt from "GerryRIGGED," Station WCVE Virginia 2017).

“There can be no doubt that the greater quantity and quality of demographic data available today allow parties to target voters more precisely and gauge their support more accurately.  Current technology thus greatly reduces the risks and increases the potential gains to the majority party from this widely denounced practice.”

- Amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the appellees in the 2018 Gill v. Whitford political gerrymandering case (authored by over a dozen constitutional scholars)

These are maps of partisan gerrymandered districts developed with the aid of computer algorithms
which test how various maps, drawn street by street, will perform under various voting scenarios.
(CNN.com, 2017)

This chart depicts how gerrymandering, as used by both political parties, can create
a misalignment between votes cast and congressional seats earned. (FairDistrictsPA, 2016)

"Both parties use gerrymandering to cement their hold on power.  The effects are especially clear nationwide for congressional delegations, according to a 2012 analysis by the Brennan Center.  In the 17 states where Republicans drew the maps this decade, their candidates won about 53 percent of the vote and 72 percent of the seats.  In the six states where Democrats drew the lines, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats."

​- New York Times, “The New Front In The Gerrymandering Wars:  Democracy vs. Math.”

---

Cracks into Chasms

CONClusion