No. of Recommendations: 1
Not redundant yet...
AI
Rucho v. Common Cause 2019 shifted the responsibility for addressing partisan gerrymandering to state courts, state legislatures, and Congress, suggesting these bodies were the proper forums for reform...
Consequences and continued litigation
~State-level challenges: Following the decision, voters and advocacy groups shifted their focus to state constitutions and state courts. Since 2021, state courts in several states, including Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, and Ohio, have struck down district maps for being unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.
~~Encouraging gerrymandering: Critics of the ruling argued that it emboldened lawmakers to draw more aggressive and partisan maps, diminishing fair representation. Common Cause noted that several states that had been major gerrymandering offenders in 2010 became even more extreme in the 2020 redistricting cycle.
~Race and party intersection: The ruling also created a loophole concerning racial gerrymandering, which remains illegal. Opponents noted that in racially polarized states, map-drawers could claim their intent was partisan rather than racial, a defense that has been deployed in court cases since the decision.
That last one, at some point partisan gerrymandering is the same thing as racial gerrymandering. It seems each state has to come up with standards for partisan gerrymandering.
