I. Introduction: Congressional Districting and Democracy 

​

       Partisan gerrymandering in the United States has become one of the most stark examples of political misrepresentation in a representative democracy. Every ten years, states redraw their legislative districts to ensure each district’s population is relatively proportionate to that of the others. However, partisan gerrymandering—defined as manipulating district boundaries to favor one party— has become increasingly common and controversial. Although racial gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause (EPC), partisan gerrymandering remains unresolved as a constitutional question. 

       In Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), the Supreme Court declared that partisan gerrymandering claims hold “political question beyond the reach of the federal courts [1].” This ruling eliminated the possibility of federal legal challenges against one of the most controversial aspects of the electoral process in the United States. Even so, the EPC was designed to prevent states from discriminating among citizens in the electoral process. The Court’s refusal to recognize partisan vote dilution as a constitutional injury marks a departure from the principle of political equality embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision weakened the federal judiciary’s protection of a fair democracy, and it abandoned voters without a way to protect them from one of the most complex forms of political discrimination today. The Court presented its restraint as neutral, but its choice not to enforce equal protection in redistricting inherently hardens partisan power and illegitimizes the idea of the representative democracy in America. 

 

II. Background 

       The Court’s modern approach to redistricting emerged from the “reapportionment revolution” of the mid-1900s, establishing the “one person, one vote” doctrine. Before the 1960s, federal courts dismissed redistricting cases as political, not constitutional issues. Courts tended to avoid disputes over redistricting, as they were regarded as “political questions” that were outside of jurisdiction, as seen in Colegrove v. Green, where Justice Frankfurter stated the courts should not “enter this political thicket [2].” This decision and others like it allowed urban and minority voters to be largely underrepresented in legislative districts, despite their population sizes. Baker v. Carr (1962), A landmark case that caused a shift in redistricting policies, in which the Court ruled that malapportionment claims could be heard under the EPC, which mandates that state governments should treat all people within their jurisdiction equally by law [3]. Baker was a turning point as it affirmed the judiciary had the responsibility to enforce equality in political representation via districts. Only two years later, the Court established the “one person, one vote” principle in Reynolds v. Sims, holding that legislative districts should contain relatively equal populations to ensure that no one citizen’s vote is inflated or deflated [4]. After these cases, equal protection was extended to other forms of vote dilution. For example, in 1993, Shaw v. Reno ruled that racial gerrymandering violated the EPC when race was a predominant factor in drawing district lines [5]. Although racial gerrymandering was outlawed, partisan gerrymandering claims remained largely unresolved, as they were argued to be beyond the courts' purview. The Supreme Court first dealt with the issue during Davis v. Bandemer, where a plurality held that extreme partisan bias in apportionment could violate the EPC, although it did not provide a clear test as to what extreme partisan bias referred to [6]. 

       However, in a later decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Court declared that claims about partisan bias were nonjusticiable due to lack of manageable standards [7]. Despite the controversy, the Baker and Reynolds decisions still argue that the judiciary should preserve equality in representation in the event that political processes do not self-correct. In 2019, in the case of Rucho v. Common Cause, this idea was tested once again to determine whether political equality is enforceable by the judiciary under the Constitution. 

 

[1] Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) 

[2] Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946). 

[3] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 

[4] Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964). 

[5] Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 647–48 (1993). 

[6] Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 127–28 (1986). 

[7] Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 286–87 (2004). 

​

III. Equal Protection and Political Equality 

       The EPC of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state will “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [8].” Throughout history, the Supreme Court used this language to protect the political electoral process and its integrity. In Baker v. Carr, the Court held that redistricting may present justiciable questions via Equal Protection, which opens the door for the Court to hear cases regarding gerrymandering in the case of vote dilution [9]. Then, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court articulated the “one person, one vote” principle and ruled that legislatures should be drawn so that votes carry equal weight [10]. Both of these cases recognized that equal protection is not limited to civil rights, but also extends to the right to participate equally in democracy through voting in fair elections. Despite this, the judicial system has hesitated to respond to questions of partisan gerrymandering and its constitutionality. 

       The EPC disallows states from drawing distinctions among citizens that hinder a right or target a protected suspect class. Still, political affiliation is not formally recognized as a suspect class, although it is connected to the right to vote. When state legislatures intentionally map district lines to disadvantage citizens based on party affiliation, they discriminate on grounds that may harm the representative democracy itself. This form of partisan discrimination undermines the neutral democratic structure and processes that the EPC intends for. A government that systematically dilutes the votes of political minorities or majorities denies them equal protection under the law [11]. So in this way, partisan gerrymandering functions similarly to racial gerrymandering, as it uses an identity (in this case, a political, not racial) to create permanent inequality in political participation. 

       Recognizing political affiliation as a significant classification under the Constitution would not require the Supreme Court to treat each partisan consideration as suspect. Instead, it would require scrutiny when evidence shows that both partisan intent and effect combine to deny a group of voters an opportunity to use their votes for proper representation. 

 

[8] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 

[9] Baker, 369 U.S. at 209. 

[10] Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 568. 

[11] Ida Roberts. 

​

IV. A Constitutional Retreat 

       In Rucho, plaintiffs from both North Carolina and Maryland challenged congressional maps, 

alleging severe partisan gerrymandering that deviated from statewide party totals. Statistical measures such as the “efficiency gap” revealed clear evidence of vote dilution based on party affiliation, which has been especially evident over the past decade [12]. In Rucho, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, concluding that the Constitution provided no judicial standard for determining where partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional [13]. The Court declared all such claims to be “political questions” beyond its jurisdiction. 

       However, Justice Elana Kagan’s dissent explained what the majority did not: extreme partisan gerrymandering does offend the EPC because it holds different citizens’ votes at different value based on their political identity [14]. Kagan wrote that modern data and statistical tools made it possible to measure and identify when partisan appointments crossed the constitutional line. This dissent reframed partisan gerrymandering as a form of viewpoint discrimination, rather than just a political issue. A viewpoint discrimination would be both a violation of Equal Protection and of the First Amendment’s protection of free political expression and association.
 

[12] Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos & Eric M. McGhee, Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 831, 845 (2015). 

[13] Rucho, 588 U.S. at 684. 

[14] Id. at 684 (Kagan, J., dissenting). 

 

V. Political Affiliation as a Protected Suspect Class 

       The EPC ultimately prohibits states from making distinctions among citizens that burden a fundamental right or target a suspect classification. And, while political affiliation is not currently recognized as a traditional suspect class, it is closely tied to the basic right to vote. When a legislature deliberately draws districts to minimize the electoral influence of citizens who belong to the “incorrect” political party, it effectively discriminates on the basis of political identity. This action should allow for heightened constitutional scrutiny. 

       The Court’s refusal to treat partisan bias as constitutionally necessary is not consistent with its treatment of similar harms. In racial gerrymandering cases like Shaw v. Reno, the Court held that districting motivated by racial considerations is a violation of the EPC when it dilutes voting power [15]. Thus, the logic used in Shaw would apply to partisan intent. Both cases involve the government sorting citizens into districts based on characteristics unrelated to their representation or individual rights. Furthermore, political identity is often intertwined with race, geographic location, and socioeconomic status, so partisan gerrymandering may sometimes be closely related to other forms of discrimination. Recognizing political identity under Equal Protection would not force courts to monitor every partisan tilt. Instead, it would allow them to identify extreme cases in which vote dilution becomes systematic exclusion, which is the sort of harm the Fourteenth Amendment was created to prevent. 

​

[15] Shaw, 509 U.S. at 647–48. 

 

VI. Consequences of Judicial Abdication 

       The Court’s refusal to intervene in Rucho has significant democratic consequences and implications beyond the case itself. Legislative maps have been drawn in several states that almost guarantee single-party control regardless of shifts in majority opinion. For example, in Wisconsin’s 2018 elections, the Democratic Party won the majority of statewide votes for its state assembly, despite only winning 36 seats out of 99 [16]. Similar phenomena occurred in North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. These outcomes are due to redistricting design, not majority voter preference, which creates a disconnect within representative democracy. By labeling partisan gerrymandering as a “political question,” the Court created a form of party entrenchment that is inherently opposite to republican government. Legal scholar Samuel Issacharoff states that unchecked partisan manipulation “transforms democracy from a system of accountability into one of insulation [17].” The judicial system’s abdication forces citizens to be dependent on the political institutions that benefit from the abuse of the system of insulation. The EPC was meant to provide a safeguard against state actors acting in their own self-interest. 

 

[16] Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018). 

[17] Samuel Issacharoff, Gerrymandering and Political Entrenchment, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 596 (2002). 

 

VII. State-Level Resistance and Federalism 

       Even after Rucho, the discussion around partisan gerrymandering did not end; it simply shifted to an argument surrounding states and federalism. Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinion, even noted that states were “actively addressing the issue through legislation and citizen initiatives [18].” In practice, this decision created a different system of protections in which fair representation relies on each state’s individual political culture. In some states, courts have used their state constitutions to avoid partisan gerrymandering. In Pennsylvania, for example, the state Supreme Court ruled in League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the Republican-controlled legislature’s congressional map violated the state constitution’s “free and equal elections” clause [19].

       Furthermore, the North Carolina Supreme Court initially invalidated legislative maps in Harper v. Hall. It held that extreme partisan bias was inconsistent with the guarantee of free elections within North Carolina [20]. The outcomes of both cases illustrate a paradox within federalism. First, the Court’s deference to the states is a reflection of the federalist principle that local governments serve as laboratories of reforms suited for their citizens. However, the decentralization of partisan gerrymandering rulings in particular creates unequal protection of voting rights. Citizens in Pennsylvania may have constitutional protections against partisan redistricting, while voters here in Wisconsin may remain misrepresented as a single party dominates state systems. Equal Protection was meant to prevent inequalities like this by establishing a national baseline of fairness. 

 

[18] Rucho, 588 U.S. at 684. 

[19] League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 178 A.3d 737, 779 (Pa. 2018).

[20] Harper v. Hall, 889 S.E.2d 830, 841 (N.C. 2022) scientistsmeasurescastMcGhie. 

​

VIII. Restoring Equal Protection in Redistricting 

       If Rucho was a judicial step backwards, to go forward, the Court must reaffirm Equal Protection as the constitutional foundation of equal and fair representation. Restoring that principle requires a combination of judicial reasoning, empirical tools, and legislative action. 

 

A. Judicial Standards Are Necessary 

       Chief Justice Roberts’s insistence that there are no judicially manageable standards for partisan gerrymandering is disagreeable. Over the past decade, political scientists and legal scholars have developed objective metrics to quantify partisan bias accurately. The efficiency gap, designed by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, measures wasted votes, which are votes cast for losing candidates or surplus votes for winning candidates, and then uses these to determine how efficiently each party’s votes translate into seats [21]. The mean-median difference and partisan symmetry tests show whether or not a map favors one party, even when vote shares shift. Courts regularly use similar quantitative tools in racial discrimination and other voting rights cases. These tools could create a baseline for a threshold test under the EPC. When a map shows extreme bias that is statistically significant and clearly partisan, it should be deemed unconstitutional without compelling justification. 

​

[21] Stephanopoulos & McGhee, supra note 13, at 850 

 

B. Legislative and Structural Solutions 

       Congress has the constitutional authority to address partisan gerrymandering through statute. Article I, Section 4, the Elections Clause, grants Congress power to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections [22]. Bills like the Freedom to Vote Act and the For the People Act propose national standards requiring independent commissions for congressional redistricting and the use of neutral criteria such as compactness. These bills have stalled in the Senate, but they nevertheless show a plausible legal pathway. 

States can also adopt constitutional amendments that mandate nonpartisan or bipartisan map-drawing. For example, Michigan’s 2018 initiative established a citizens’ redistricting commission composed of individuals from across party lines through a lottery system. Although the initiative was recent, early analyses show that the resulting maps significantly reduced partisan skew. These reforms, although imperfect, prove that structural solutions are possible when citizens back the cause. 

 

[22] U.S. Const. art. I, § 4. 

 

C. Updating Equal Protection 

       In the end, the constitutional argument for reform depends on how Equal Protection is interpreted. A more limited and current interpretation holds that the clause simply means anti-discrimination. However, Equal Protection should also be used to determine democratic fairness. Legal scholar Richard Pildes argues that modern equal protection prudence has “constitutionalized democratic politics” by ensuring that electoral structures reflect actual political competition, not the entrenchment of a singular party.23 Under this lens, the judiciary’s role is not to dictate electoral outcomes but to preserve the idea of self-governance. 

 

[23] Richard H. Pildes, The Constitutionalization of Democratic Politics, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 28, 29–30 (2004). 

​

IX. Conclusion 

       When the Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr in 1962, Justice Brennan wrote that judicial engagement in redistricting was necessary to ensure “fair and effective representation for all citizens [24].” Six decades later, Rucho v. Common Cause reversed this trajectory, ruling that partisan gerrymandering was a problem beyond legal or constitutional repair. Still, the consequences of abdication are visible across the country. Legislatures drawing themselves safe majorities and public trust in democracy erodes as a result. 

       The EPC was born from the Reconstruction Congress’s conviction that equality should be guaranteed in theory and practice. The Fourteenth Amendment sought to dismantle systems of subordination that distorted democracy. Partisan gerrymandering and its permanence represent exactly that. By treating political identity as beyond constitutional concern, the Court has hollowed out the principle that sustains democratic legitimacy: every citizen’s voice should matter equally. 

       Until the Supreme Court retraces its steps, the Equal Protection Clause will not be wholly fulfilled. The congressional lines of American democracy will be redrawn by those already in power to stay in power, unless each person is viewed as equal under the law and at the ballot box, regardless of partisan affiliation. 

 

[24] Baker, 369 U.S. at 208 abstinence, abdication. 

​