The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps.
Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation.
Why It Matters
The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress.
The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy.
What To Know
The Supreme Court’s Role
In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that “such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion.
In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court’s refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: “Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one.”
Kagan argued that the court’s withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around.
The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was “incompatible with democratic principles,” he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response.
What Is Gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party.
Here’s how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party’s voters are grouped together (“packing”) or split apart across multiple districts (“cracking”). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes.
For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don’t reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes.
In the long run, it can lock in one party’s power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box.
Recent Reaction in Texas
On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat’s role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, “There must be consequences.”
Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters.
What People Are Saying
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: “I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements.
“Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans.”
State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: “Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office.”
He added: “History will judge this moment.”
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: “We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce.”
What Happens Next
With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas’ redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts.
While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies.
As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.
Read the full article here
