Case No. 18-422 | M.D.N.C.
Preview by Boseul (Jenny) Jeong, Online Editor
During the last term, there were two partisan gerrymandering cases before the Supreme Court. Yet, the Court did not provide clear answers and two new partisan gerrymandering cases are in front of the Court again, including Rucho v. Common Cause.
North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan (“2016 Plan”) is in question here. When the issue first came before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the court held the 2016 Plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution. Common Cause v. Rucho, 318 F.Supp.3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018). The court then enjoined the use of the 2016 Plan after the general election on November 6, 2018. Id. at 942.
Appellants argue appellees lack standing because their purported injuries are even less discernable than those of plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, 138 S.Ct. 1916 (2018), who were found to lack standing. Appellants further argue that the partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because (1) federal courts are improper entities for resolving this issue because of the delegation of federal oversight power to Congress regarding states’ regulations on Congressional elections, and (2) there are no justiciable standards to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. In their opinion, the district court’s test only showed that there cannot be a manageable standard, especially when the framers left the power to district to those who are susceptible to partisan politics. Lastly, they argue that the 2016 Plan is constitutional under traditional districting criteria.
Appellees focus on the concept of “cracked” or “packed” districts described by the Court in Gill v. Whitford. They argue that their residencies in “cracked” or “packed” districts affect the weight of their votes and are sufficient bases for their standing in this claim. Appellees respond to the justiciability argument by drawing comparison to racial gerrymandering, which results from cracking and packing and is justiciable. They also assert that federal courts can adjudicate this issue because the Election Clause actually authorizes the courts to review states’ regulations and partisan gerrymandering is not an exception. Lastly, appellees argue that the 2016 Plan is unconstitutional because the district was drawn with the explicit intention to affect the Democratic Party’s representation.
This case raises some familiar issues that the Court saw in previous partisan gerrymandering cases, and now it is again up to the Court to decide these questions. Many eyes will be on this case, especially after the Court has dodged the core issue in their last term.