Fact check: How do courts determine if a district has been gerrymandered?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the question of how courts determine gerrymandering reveals a complex and evolving legal landscape. The Supreme Court's 2019 ruling fundamentally changed the judicial approach to partisan gerrymandering by establishing that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, leaving it to states to address the issue ^[1]. This represents a significant shift in judicial authority over redistricting matters.

However, courts have explored various methodological approaches when they were able to hear such cases. The analyses reveal that the 'efficiency gap' has been proposed as a standard for determining discriminatory effect in gerrymandering cases, as mentioned in cases like Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone ^[2]. This mathematical approach attempts to quantify partisan advantage in district drawing.

The distinction between racial and partisan gerrymandering remains important, as courts continue to hear cases involving racial gerrymandering, such as the Supreme Court case regarding a second majority-Black district in Louisiana redistricting ^[3]. This suggests that while partisan gerrymandering claims are largely off-limits to federal courts, racial gerrymandering cases still fall under judicial review.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that significantly impact the answer:

• The 2019 Supreme Court decision represents a watershed moment - before this ruling, courts had more latitude to evaluate gerrymandering claims, but the current legal framework severely limits federal judicial intervention ^{[1] [4]}.
• State-level variations are not addressed - while federal courts have stepped back, individual states may have their own constitutional provisions and court systems that handle gerrymandering claims differently ^[1].
• Alternative solutions exist outside the court system, including independent redistricting commissions and legal protections against extreme gerrymandering ^[5]. Mathematical algorithms have also been proposed to create fair district maps ^[6].
• The weakening of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court has allowed states to engage in more extreme partisan gerrymandering ^[7], providing important historical context for why judicial remedies have become more limited.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually neutral, contains an implicit assumption that courts currently have a standard, active role in determining gerrymandering. This assumption is misleading given the current legal reality. The question suggests that there is a clear, established judicial process for determining gerrymandering, when in fact:

• Federal courts have largely been removed from partisan gerrymandering cases as of 2019 ^{[1] [4]}
• The judicial landscape has fundamentally changed, making the question somewhat outdated in its framing
• The question fails to distinguish between different types of gerrymandering (racial vs. partisan), which have different legal standards and court accessibility

The framing could benefit from acknowledging that the answer depends heavily on the type of gerrymandering, the jurisdiction, and the significant recent changes in federal court authority over these matters.