partisan gerrymandering

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais and Abbott v. LULAC has legitimized partisan gerrymandering as a constitutional government purpose, allowing it to override the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination in redistricting. The rulings require plaintiffs challenging discriminatory maps to prove alternative maps can achieve both anti-discrimination goals and partisan objectives, effectively granting states a constitutional right to prioritize partisan interests over equitable representation.

The Florida Supreme Court allowed new US House districts drawn by Republicans to be used in the midterm elections, supporting a GOP redistricting effort. The court denied a request for a temporary injunction, stating it lacked jurisdiction to intervene while the lawsuit proceeds in lower courts.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit challenging partisan gerrymandering in the state's 2023 legislative districts, ruling the claims raised non-justiciable political questions. The plaintiffs, represented by Bob Orr, argued the state constitution implies a right to fair elections, but the court stated unenumerated rights cannot invalidate the General Assembly's actions.

Florida's new U.S. House redistricting map, which could help Republicans gain four additional seats, faces its first court challenge Friday on claims it violates the state's constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of voters, seeks to block the districts from being used in November elections, challenging a map approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis after a swift two-day special legislative session.

Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General, called the Virginia redistricting referendum a 'national fight' as Democrats seek to secure a 10-1 congressional seat advantage by redrawing maps. He criticized Republicans for creating a 'crisis' that Democrats must address.