Also known as: partisan gerrymander · partisan gerrymanders · partisan gerrymandered
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The drawing of legislative district boundaries to favor one political party over another. Federal courts treat claims challenging such maps solely on partisan grounds as nonjusticiable political questions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prairie Harvest Cooperative and family farmers sued the State Redistricting Commission after the new congressional map packed rural farming counties into two oversized districts to reduce the influence of voters supporting one party. The commission moved to dismiss the complaint. The federal court granted the motion because the suit challenged only partisan favoritism in district lines.
Public school teachers and university faculty led by plaintiff Rivera sued the State Board of Elections after a congressional map split the city's educational campuses to dilute the voting strength of pro-education-funding voters aligned with one party. The Board moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed the action on the ground that the claim rested solely on partisan effects.
Harbor Alliance sued the State Elections Commission after the Commission attached a compact coastal port community to a distant inland district to dilute the community's support for one political party. The Commission moved to dismiss for nonjusticiability. The federal court granted the motion and refused to adjudicate the partisan gerrymandering allegation.
Pioneer Startups sued state election officials after the legislature redrew a congressional district around the region's technology corridor to guarantee continued control by one political party. The defendants moved to dismiss. The federal court granted the motion because the complaint alleged only excessive partisan advantage.
East Clinical sued the State A Secretary of Elections after the legislature drew a serpentine district that packed pharmaceutical lab and biotech employees into a single seat to dilute their influence on subsidy policy. The Secretary moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed the complaint as presenting a nonjusticiable political question.
Russell and fellow auto workers sued after the State M legislature divided their industrial district across three new congressional districts to scatter their voting strength and diminish influence on labor policy. The State moved to dismiss. The federal court granted the motion because the claim challenged only partisan districting choices.
Federal courts dismiss such claims because they present nonjusticiable political questions. The Constitution supplies no judicially manageable standards for deciding how much partisan advantage is too much. Plaintiffs who allege only partisan favoritism therefore receive no relief in federal court.
Supporting sources
No. The one-person-one-vote rule addresses population equality among districts. A claim that a map packs or cracks voters to favor one party does not allege unequal population and therefore falls outside that doctrine.
…any regard for political subdivision or natural or historical boundary lines, may be little more than an open invitation to partisan gerrymandering. Single-member districts may be the rule in one State, while another State might desire to achieve some flexibility by creating multimember[^maj-58] or floterial districts.[^maj-59]…
…J., concurring). Cf. Connor, supra , at 425. Disregard for geographic divisions and compactness often goes hand in hand with partisan gerrymandering. See Karcher, supra , at 776 (White, J., dissenting); Wells v. Rockefeller , 394 U. S. 542, 554 (1969) (White, J., dissenting). But while district irregularities may provide strong…
…that the plurality opinion has "confounded legislators, practitioners, and academics alike"); Schuck, The Thickest Thicket: Partisan Gerrymandering
…Amendment. Nothing in our precedents compels us to take this step, and there is every reason not to do so. I would hold that the partisan gerrymandering
…and subsequent elections. A three-judge District Court concluded that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering
Supporting sources
No. Even when plaintiffs identify measurable economic harm tied to the map, the claim remains nonjusticiable if it rests solely on partisan electoral consequences. Courts look to the nature of the claim rather than the label placed on the injury.
Supporting sources
No. Metrics that quantify partisan asymmetry or wasted votes do not supply a judicially manageable constitutional standard. Courts still treat the underlying dispute as a political question reserved for the political branches.
Supporting sources
Yes. The federal nonjusticiability holding applies only to federal courts and the federal Constitution. States remain free to enforce their own constitutional provisions against partisan gerrymandering through state courts or independent commissions.
Supporting sources