Supreme Court Reaffirms It Will Not Protect Voters from Partisan Gerrymandering

Supreme Court Reaffirms It Will Not Protect Voters from Partisan Gerrymandering
Published: 08 Oct, 2019
2 min read

With all the news on impeachment updates, a news story that flew under the radar this week was the latest decision by the Supreme Court to punt on a gerrymandering case out of Ohio.

Reuters reports:

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a challenge to Republican-drawn congressional districts in Ohio that Democrats said were drawn to unlawfully diminish their political clout, a move that follows a major ruling by the justices in June that foreclosed such lawsuits.
The court’s action in the case involving a practice known as partisan gerrymandering means that 16 U.S. House of Representatives districts will no longer be reconfigured, as a three-judge panel had ordered in May.
The Supreme Court had put the panel’s ruling on hold ahead of its rulings, issued the next month, in two major gerrymandering cases from Maryland and North Carolina.
The justices in June dealt a major blow to election reformers by saying in its June 27 ruling that federal courts have no role to play in reining in electoral map manipulation by politicians aimed at entrenching one party in power."

As a result of its ruling in June, the high court's decision in the Ohio case comes as no surprise. There is another case pending a decision out of Michigan that is expected to end in a similar way.

It is important to note that this issue is not just about Republicans. It is not just about Democrats. The Supreme Court threw out a Democratic challenge to Republican drawn maps in North Carolina. It threw out a Republican challenge to Democratic drawn maps in Maryland.

But the challenges have also not been to serve the interests of voters, but the interests of the challenging party.

Both parties use gerrymandering and other anti-competitive schemes to suppress the vote of citizens outside their membership. Both parties rig the process against alternative voices and independent-minded voters. The consequence is the very political environment we see in DC today: hyper-partisan, divisive, unresponsive, and unrepresentative.

It is no wonder that movements for political and election reform have so much momentum right now, from ending gerrymandering on a state-by-state basis, to creating more inclusive debates, to ensuring every voter, not just party members, has a meaningful vote in the elections process.

Creating a more competitive, more responsive, and less divisive political environment starts with unrigging the rules that protect the two-party duopoly.

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read