The Only Way to Be Absolutely Sure You Are Drawing a Fair Congressional Map

The Supreme Court majority opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, established a new framework for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims on March 25, 2024. The ruling stated that plaintiffs must demonstrate that a redistricting plan was drawn with an "intent to disfavor" a political party, rather than simply showing that the plan has a discriminatory effect. This marks a significant shift from previous legal standards that focused on the outcome of the map-drawing process. The Court's decision overturned a lower court ruling that had found South Carolina's congressional map unconstitutional, arguing that the district court had applied the wrong legal test. Roberts' opinion emphasized that while partisan gerrymandering is a "political question" best left to the political branches, courts can intervene if there is clear evidence of intentional discrimination against a party. The majority opinion cited the "totality of the circumstances" test, which considers factors such as the redistricting process, the data used, and the statements made by map drawers. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the majority for creating a "new and higher" bar for challenging partisan gerrymanders, arguing that it would make it nearly impossible to prove intentional discrimination. Kagan contended that the majority's approach would allow for "egregious" partisan gerrymandering to go unchecked, undermining democratic principles. The ruling is expected to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to successfully challenge congressional maps based on partisan advantage in future litigation.