The Supreme Court reinstated a Texas gerrymander on March 15, 2024, a decision that is anticipated to grant the Republican Party an additional five seats in the United States House of Representatives. This ruling came after a lower federal court had previously struck down the controversial mapping. The justices voted along party lines, with the three Democratic justices dissenting.
The case, known as Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), has significant implications for future federal lawsuits aimed at challenging gerrymandered electoral maps. The Court’s order imposes burdens on plaintiffs that may deter many from pursuing legal challenges against gerrymandering practices, potentially leaving them with little recourse.
Before LULAC, it was possible for plaintiffs to successfully challenge maps drawn with racial considerations, but the new ruling complicates this further. The Court’s majority has established a presumption of legislative good faith, which means that challenges to gerrymandering will likely be met with skepticism, especially if the evidence is not overwhelmingly clear.
Understanding the nuances of gerrymandering is essential. There are two primary types: partisan gerrymanders, which are designed to benefit the party in power, and racial gerrymanders, which manipulate district boundaries to influence racial representation. The distinction between the two has historically affected court outcomes, as seen in the Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which stated that federal courts cannot hear challenges to partisan gerrymanders.
Prior to LULAC, it was still possible for plaintiffs to prove that a racial gerrymander was unconstitutional if race played a predominant role in the redistricting process, as established in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP. However, the Court’s latest ruling raises the bar significantly for those seeking to contest gerrymandered maps, particularly those that may disproportionately impact Black voters.
The backdrop to the Texas gerrymander includes actions taken by the Justice Department under former President Donald Trump. The DOJ issued a directive suggesting that Texas redraw its maps to avoid districts where white voters would be in the minority—a claim that was later deemed misleading. The lower court that initially invalidated the gerrymander pointed to strong evidence indicating that Texas drew its maps in response to this directive.
Despite this evidence, the Supreme Court’s LULAC decision criticized the lower court for failing to apply a strong presumption in favor of the Texas legislature. This ruling suggests that courts are likely to favor state actions, regardless of the evidence presented against them.
The Supreme Court’s majority placed further conditions on plaintiffs, stating that those challenging a racial gerrymander must provide an alternative map that meets the state’s partisan objectives without racial implications. This requirement complicates challenges, as it essentially demands that plaintiffs propose maps that achieve similar political outcomes without addressing racial considerations.
The LULAC ruling also alluded to concerns about altering election rules close to an election, despite the lower court’s ruling occurring nearly a year before the next scheduled elections. This has raised questions about the Court’s interpretation of timing in relation to gerrymandering cases.
Ultimately, the LULAC decision represents a significant step towards limiting the legal avenues available to those opposing gerrymandering practices. The cumulative effect of the ruling is likely to discourage civil rights advocates and others from challenging maps that may dilute minority representation, particularly in jurisdictions where political and racial interests converge.
As the political landscape shifts, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority appears to be signaling a retreat from oversight of gerrymandering, potentially emboldening states to adopt increasingly partisan redistricting practices. The future of electoral fairness may hinge on how these developments unfold in the coming years.
