Rucho v. Common Cause - Trial Court
Federal Courts on Partisan Gerrymandering, Part 1.
When I decided to do a series on partisan gerrymandering, I obviously had no idea that our initial post would coincide with the death of racial gerrymandering claims, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais. We’ll continue with our series on partisan gerrymandering, but we’ll circle back to racial gerrymandering in due course.
For now, I’ll just make two observations. First, Louisiana v. Callais is already proving quite damaging to representative democracy. With basically no guardrails left, not a day has passed without a news update in the gerrymandering wars that would have been unthinkable not long ago. We are witnessing a race to the bottom.
Second, I was at least pleasantly surprised to learn that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, racism in the United States is over and no longer something we need to concern ourselves with. I’m relieved. 🙃
Turning back to partisan gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause, which began in North Carolina.
Short Version:
A bi-partisan, 3-judge panel held that the 2016 North Carolina congressional map violated the U.S. Constitution because it was deliberately drawn to disadvantage a politically identifiable group (Democrats). It produced predictable, durable partisan entrenchment (for Republicans) without any legitimate state interest to justify that discrimination. In the court’s view, such maps inverted the fundamental republican principle that voters choose representatives, not the other way around.
Longer Version:
Following North Carolina’s 2016 congressional redistricting, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters challenged the map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A bipartisan 3-judge panel conducted a full trial and held that the congressional maps violated the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment), and various provisions of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
The court found that Republican legislative leaders and their consultant, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, intentionally used political data to draw districts that would advantage Republican candidates and preserve a 10–3 Republican congressional delegation. Representative David Lewis infamously said, “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”
This map was prepared largely by Dr. Hofeller before public hearings. Public input was not incorporated, and Democratic committee members lacked access to Dr. Hofeller work product. His maps concentrated Democratic voters into a small number of districts (packing) while creating more Republican-leaning districts (cracking).
Republican leaders did not identify any legitimate democratic, constitutional, or public interest served by the partisan objectives. Instead, they candidly explained that maintaining a Republican advantage was the purpose. Rep. Lewis even stated, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.” He later co-authored a piece in The Atlantic entitled, “We Drew Congressional Maps for Partisan Advantage. That Was the Point.”
The trial court concluded the 2016 map violated the Constitution under the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Article I. They held that intentional, durable partisan entrenchment that subordinates voters’ political choices is unconstitutional.
“The core principle of our republican government is that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
The court relied on the principle that voters, not legislators, must choose representatives. In other words, partisan line-drawing to entrench a party undermines representative democracy. The court treated the explicit use of partisan election data and the stated goal of maintaining a 10–3 partisan advantage as powerful proof of unconstitutional partisan intent and effect.
Here are a few of the key findings as to specific parts of the U.S. Constitution:
First Amendment — The court treated extreme partisan line‑drawing as a form of political discrimination that punishes or burdens citizens for their political beliefs and associations. When mapmakers intentionally design districts to penalize supporters of one party and entrench another, they are effectively suppressing political expression and association protected by the First Amendment.
Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) — The court held that a map that intentionally and systematically dilutes the electoral power of an identifiable political group violates equal protection because it denies those voters an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation.
Article I and structural principles — The court emphasized that the Constitution’s structure presumes voters, not legislators, choose representatives. Maps which invert that principle by predetermining electoral outcomes undermine the republican form of government.
Critically, the trial court reaffirmed the principle that in our representative democracy, voters must be able to pick their representatives, not the other way around.
However, as we’ll discuss in our next post, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Regardless, at least some judges—liberal and conservative—recognize that partisan gerrymandering is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the core democratic principles of our republican form of government.
p.s. — Don’t forget to support our rockstar Democratic judicial candidates via our 2026 NC Judicial Slate!
