Political Gerrymandering:  Is Too Much Too Much?

John Christie • May 15, 2019

In today’s over-heated partisan world, political gerrymandering of election districts has in many places become the norm rather than the exception. However, technology by way of newly created sophisticated computer software makes today’s partisan gerrymandering altogether different from the more crude partisan line drawing of the past. This fact, together with improved methods of collecting data on voters, has allowed political parties today to achieve the maximum number of safe seats through a gerrymander. And the practice is not just done by one particular party. Whatever party controls the present political wheels of a state government is likely to do it—and historically has done so.

This term, the Supreme Court has before it two cases raising the question of whether the Constitution imposes any limits on partisan line drawing. One of the cases is from Maryland involving a Democratic drawn election district, Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District. Lamone v. Benisek . The other case is from North Carolina involving a Republican drawn election district. Rucho v. Common Cause . Oral argument in both cases was held before the Court on March 26 and a decision is expected before the end of June.

Taken at face value during oral argument, the nine Justices appeared quite divided on the issue. For some, “over the top” gerrymandering designed to improve a particular party’s election prospects was both troubling and in need of correction. Others appeared to be reluctant to enter into the political arena, either fearing that the Court itself would inevitably appear to be taking political sides or that the political process itself would ultimately course correct without the need of judicial intervention. For still others, the question was “how much partisan dominance is too much,” in the words of retired Justice Kennedy. As a result, it is perhaps even more difficult than usual to predict how the Court will come out on the issue by the time of the ultimate decision.

After the oral argument before the Supreme Court, two separate lower three-judge federal courts struck down gerrymanders in Ohio and Michigan, ruling that the legislators’ political redistricting violated the Constitution. League of Women Voters v. Benson (ED Michigan, April 25, 2019); Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Householder (SD Ohio, May 3, 2019). In lengthy, detailed opinions, these courts may well have been sending a message to the Supreme Court that “the efficiency of today’s partisan redistricting has damaged the democratic process to a degree that our predecessors only began to imagine.” In the view of these judges, the core concern about partisan gerrymandering is that representatives choose their voters and not vice-versa—that is, when partisan gerrymandering amounts to a constitutional violation, the winners and losers are often already predetermined by those in power.

Moreover, these six judges are convinced that the courts ought not leave disfavored voters “at the mercy of advancing technology” when a party in power exploits that technology to draw district lines with the purpose and effect of imposing burdens on a disfavored party and its voters and to dictate electoral outcomes. When it can be shown that the predominant purpose of the challenged district was to “subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power” and when it can be shown that the plan had the effect of diluting the votes of members of the disfavored party, the result violates the Constitution unless the defendant party can present evidence that legitimate legislative grounds provided a basis for the way in which each challenged district was drawn.

It remains to be seen whether and to what extent these lower court opinions will influence the Justices on the Supreme Court. However, these judges have provided a roadmap to the Supreme Court as to exactly why partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution and when partisan dominance is “too much.”

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
By Jan Plotczyk May 21, 2025
Apparently, some people think that the GOP’s “big beautiful bill” is a foregone conclusion, and that the struggle over the budget and Trump’s agenda is over and done. Not true. On Sunday night, the bill — given the alternate name “Big Bad Bullsh*t Bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus — was voted out of the House Budget Committee. The GOP plan is to pass this legislation in the House before Memorial Day. But that’s not the end of it. As Jessica Craven explained in her Chop Wood Carry Water column: “Remember, we have at least six weeks left in this process. The bill has to: Pass the House, Then head to the Senate where it will likely be rewritten almost completely, Then be passed there, Then be brought back to the House for reconciliation, And then, if the House changes that version at all, Go back to the Senate for another vote.” She adds, “Every step of that process is a place for us to kill it.” The bill is over a thousand pages long, and the American people will not get a chance to read it until it has passed the House. But, thanks to 5Calls , we know it includes:
By Jared Schablein, Shore Progress May 13, 2025
Let's talk about our Eastern Shore Delegation, the representatives who are supposed to fight for our nine Shore counties in Annapolis, and what they actually got up to this session.
By Markus Schmidt, Virginia Mercury May 12, 2025
For the first time in recent memory, Virginia Democrats have candidates running in all 100 House of Delegates districts — a milestone party leaders and grassroots organizers say reflects rising momentum as President Donald Trump’s second term continues to galvanize opposition.
Show More