How do court rulings since 2020 treat partisan gerrymandering by each party?
Executive summary
Federal courts have been largely removed from policing partisan gerrymanders since the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho, so the post‑2020 fight has migrated to state courts and state constitutions where results are mixed: some state high courts have found partisan gerrymanders justiciable and struck maps (often maps drawn by Republican legislatures), while others have rejected review or upheld enacted plans, producing outcomes that have advantaged both parties in different states [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The federal baseline: Rucho closed the federal courthouse door
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause declared partisan‑gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable in federal courts, establishing that federal judges lack a judicially manageable standard to police partisan map‑drawing and thereby consigning these disputes primarily to states [1] [5].
2. State courts step in — a patchwork of justiciability and remedies
With the federal avenue blocked, plaintiffs have filed partisan‑fairness claims in state courts across the country, and a plurality of state supreme courts that have considered the issue since 2020 have concluded those claims can be adjudicated under state constitutions, while a smaller number have held they cannot, producing a fragmented legal landscape that depends on state law and judicial interpretation [6] [3].
3. Outcomes by party: Republican‑drawn maps often targeted and sometimes overturned
Many high‑profile post‑2020 challenges have targeted Republican‑drawn maps — for example, North Carolina’s 2021 congressional plan was struck by the state supreme court as an impermissible partisan gerrymander and replaced with a court‑drawn map (a decision tied to Democratic‑affiliated challengers), and advocacy groups highlighted skewed maps in states like Texas and Florida as emblematic of Republican advantage; state courts have in several instances invalidated Republican plans on state‑law grounds [7] [8] [2].
4. Democratic maps and the other side of the ledger
Challenges have not been one‑sided: Democratic‑favored maps have also faced litigation and occasional reversals, and historically federal cases involved Democratic‑advantaged maps too; state court rulings have sometimes upheld maps that advantaged Democrats or limited the scope of review (for instance, courts in New Jersey and Oregon found limits to review or compliance with state law), underscoring that state courts evaluate plans from both parties under varying standards [3] [2].
5. Mixed jurisprudence: examples that illustrate inconsistency
Since 2020 state courts have produced divergent rulings: the New Mexico Supreme Court held partisan‑gerrymandering claims justiciable and articulated standards for review, Kentucky and others also recognized state‑law remedies without always striking maps, while the South Carolina and New Hampshire high courts rejected broad state‑constitutional bases for partisan claims or limited review, demonstrating that identical factual maps can yield opposite legal outcomes depending on the forum and legal theory [2] [3] [4].
6. Legal theories, race, and the shifting strategy of map‑makers
Because racial gerrymandering remains cognizable under federal law, map‑drawers sometimes formalize partisan goals in ways that claim partisan motives rather than racial intent; critics argue Rucho’s federal retreat has made it easier to disguise race‑based harms as partisan choices, and commentators warn this dynamic has particularly affected voters of color in the South where race and party are closely correlated [9] [10] [5].
7. What determines victory: texts, courts, and politics
The decisive factors in post‑2020 rulings are primarily state constitutional text, the interpretive stance of state judges, and procedural anomalies (for example, violating state redistricting procedures can doom a map even where partisan fairness tests are unsettled), meaning partisan advantage interacts with institutional details — including who controls state supreme courts — to shape whether a map survives [2] [4] [7].
8. Bottom line: a battleground defined by state law, not national uniformity
Since 2020 the treatment of partisan gerrymandering depends less on which party drew the maps and more on where the challenge is brought: federal courts mostly cannot help (Rucho), state courts are now the principal arena and have reached both pro‑ and anti‑gerrymander outcomes that have benefitted Republicans in some places and Democrats in others, producing a decentralized, unpredictable system in which legal text, judicial composition, and race‑party correlation shape results [1] [6] [7].