Your Civil+ free trial is ending soon
Click Free Trial in the task bar for more info.
Your Civil+ free trial is active
The subscription will auto-renew on {{insert end date}}. To manage your subscription, visit the Customer Portal.

Working on it...

We're working on the mobile experience for this page right now.

Thank you for your patience!

- Civil Team

Back to Home
Elections
|
2004

Vieth v. Jubelirer

In recent years, beginning with Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot address partisan gerrymandering.

Slides

In recent years, the Supreme Court has proven that while it is willing to prohibit racial gerrymandering, it will not stop legislators from discriminating based on how residents voted, otherwise known as partisan gerrymandering. In 2004, a plurality of the Court in Vieth v. Jubelirer ruled that it had no authority to stop partisan gerrymandering. The majority of justices further found that federal courts had no jurisdiction over the issue in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause. Although they did allow for challenging gerrymandered maps in state courts, the Vieth and subsequent Rucho decisions have left the Court inept in addressing partisan gerrymandering, allowing legislators to blatantly rig maps. Both rulings return the Court to pre-Baker precedent when it found gerrymandering presented a nonjusticiable issue.