Gerry mandering in the 90's and early 2000's
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In the 1990s and early 2000s, U.S. redistricting litigation shifted the legal battlefield from purely partisan claims to race-focused challenges—most notably Shaw v. Reno (remanded in 1993) where the Supreme Court endorsed the theory that racially motivated districting can violate the Equal Protection Clause [1] [2]. At the same time, states used increasingly sophisticated tools and partisan tactics—by the early 2000s professionals were using software such as Maptitude to optimize maps—so partisan advantage grew into the 2000s even as courts wrestled with standards for intervention [3] [4].
1. The 1990s: courts inject race into gerrymandering law
The defining legal turn of the 1990s was the Court’s willingness to treat certain district lines as racial gerrymanders, not merely political play: Shaw v. Reno established that drawing districts that concentrate or segregate voters by race could trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and be subject to remand for factual inquiry [1] [2]. Reporting and legal commentary from that decade show the doctrine was controversial: challengers included white voters opposing majority‑minority districts, and scholars later described the 1990s as a period when racial gerrymandering jurisprudence injected a “deeply skeptical, color‑blind requirement” into redistricting [5] [2].
2. Partisan gerrymandering remained hard to police
Despite intense litigation over race, the Supreme Court repeatedly struggled to craft a workable standard for partisan gerrymandering. By the mid‑2000s the Court—through opinions such as those summarized by the Congressional Research Service—indicated that claims about mid‑decade overrides or partisan intent lacked a reliably manageable judicial standard, and the Constitution does not plainly forbid mid‑decade congressional redistricting [6]. That judicial reluctance left partisan complaints often resolved politically or in state courts rather than by a definitive federal rule [6].
3. States and parties kept refining the art of map‑making
The technological and organizational tools for drawing maps improved dramatically by the early 2000s. Professional redistricting software (e.g., Maptitude) and access to demographic plus past‑voting data made it possible to optimize maps for partisan advantage at speed and scale; commentators argue this made gerrymanders “more devastating” than before [3]. Research also finds a broader trend: while plans in the 1990s were “roughly fair,” by the 2000s and 2010s maps on average shifted toward greater advantage for Republicans, suggesting the practice intensified after the 1990s [4].
4. State examples illustrate shifting tactics and blame
Individual states reveal a mixed picture. Tennessee, Texas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina produced maps in the 1990s and early 2000s that critics called among the era’s most convoluted or partisan—Texas Democrats in 1991 drew maps described as “the shrewdest gerrymander of the 1990s,” and a 2003 mid‑decade Republican plan in Texas and elsewhere prompted dramatic political responses [7]. North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District became emblematic of both racial and partisan concerns for its stretched, I‑85‑following shape and repeated litigation [1].
5. Reform efforts and competing narratives emerged
As courts grappled with standards, reformers pushed institutional fixes. By the mid‑2000s some states—California among them—adopted independent commissions for drawing maps, increasing the number of seats under commission control and signaling an alternative approach to legislator‑driven maps [8]. At the same time, partisan actors who earlier backed anti‑gerrymandering proposals sometimes changed position once power dynamics shifted, creating competing narratives about motives behind reform [9].
6. Scholarly debate: race, partisanship, and measurement
Scholars and advocacy groups disagreed about causes and remedies. The Brennan Center and others documented extreme state maps and documented partisan outcomes [7], while research on measures—like the “efficiency gap”—sought quantitative ways to detect partisan bias; those studies show increases in partisan advantage after the 1990s and into the 2000s [4]. Other work argued that majority‑minority districts did not necessarily align with partisan bias across decades, illustrating that race‑based and partisan harms can overlap but are not identical [10].
Limitations and takeaways: available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of every 1990s/2000s gerrymander nor settle normative questions about specific maps; the reporting and scholarship above together show a decisive shift in law (Shaw and its aftermath), a technological and partisan intensification by the early 2000s, and parallel pushes for institutional reform [1] [3] [6] [8].