GERRYMANDERING EXPLAINED
Congressional Voting Districts. Source: Wikimedia Commons
State legislatures have the constitutional authority to redraw district voting lines (redistrict) to create new maps for both Congressional and state legislative districts.
Past Supreme Court decisions have limited redistricting in only two ways:
Malapportionment: In the 1962 case Baker v. Carr, the Court ruled that districts with unequal populations are unconstitutional because they dilute the power of some votes. Since the mid-1960's, the Court's "one person, one vote" standard requires most states to redistrict after each Census to account for population shifts and keep districts equal.
Racial Gerrymandering: In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that drawing districts based solely on race can be unconstitutional unless it satisfies a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner.
When a state legislature draws lines in a way that is specifically meant to benefit their political party, it’s called partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has yet to rule a partisan gerrymander unconstitutional.
Past Supreme Court decisions have limited redistricting in only two ways:
Malapportionment: In the 1962 case Baker v. Carr, the Court ruled that districts with unequal populations are unconstitutional because they dilute the power of some votes. Since the mid-1960's, the Court's "one person, one vote" standard requires most states to redistrict after each Census to account for population shifts and keep districts equal.
Racial Gerrymandering: In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that drawing districts based solely on race can be unconstitutional unless it satisfies a compelling government interest in the least restrictive manner.
When a state legislature draws lines in a way that is specifically meant to benefit their political party, it’s called partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has yet to rule a partisan gerrymander unconstitutional.