Fact check: What role does the Supreme Court play in shaping gerrymandering laws for the 2024 election?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court plays a pivotal and increasingly permissive role in shaping gerrymandering laws for the 2024 election through a series of landmark rulings that have systematically weakened federal oversight of redistricting practices.

The Court's most significant impact came through its 2019 ruling that federal courts cannot rein in state lawmakers' power to draw legislative maps, effectively allowing partisan gerrymandering to continue unless states take action or Congress intervenes ^[1]. This decision has given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting over the past decade ^[1].

The Court's 6-3 conservative majority has weakened the Voting Rights Act in several rulings, fundamentally altering the redistricting landscape ^[1]. Most recently, the Supreme Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP has further weakened voting rights laws, allowing partisan gerrymandering to benefit white voters, which will directly impact the 2024 election ^[2].

The Court has developed extensive jurisprudence on redistricting, including cases related to population requirements, legislative authority versus commissions, race considerations, and partisan gerrymandering, establishing key principles such as the requirement that legislative districts be apportioned substantially according to population through cases like Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Reynolds v. Sims ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to address several critical ongoing developments that will shape the 2024 election landscape:

• The Supreme Court is set to take up a case that could further limit or strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which could give states even more freedom to engage in partisan gerrymandering ^[4]. This represents a potential supercharging of the GOP's redistricting power grab ^[4].
• There are active legal challenges currently working through the courts, including Callais v. Landry, which could impact the 2024 election, with the ACLU involved in several ongoing cases challenging gerrymandering ^[5].
• The Court has delayed a ruling on the Louisiana redistricting case, which could alter the future of voting rights, raising concerns among experts that the Court may be poised to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ^[6].
• The question omits discussion of Congressional alternatives, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, which could have limited partisan gerrymandering and which the ACLU is advocating Congress to pass to ban partisan gerrymandering ^{[7] [5]}.
• Specific state-level redistricting battles in Texas, California, and New York are actively unfolding and will impact the 2024 House elections ^{[8] [7]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no explicit misinformation but presents a significant framing limitation by treating the Supreme Court's role as neutral or procedural rather than acknowledging the partisan implications of recent rulings.

The question fails to acknowledge that the Court's current approach disproportionately benefits Republican redistricting efforts through its systematic weakening of federal oversight mechanisms ^{[4] [2]}. Conservative legal organizations and Republican state legislators benefit substantially from the Court's current jurisprudence, as it allows them greater freedom to draw favorable district maps without federal intervention.

The framing also omits the racial dimensions of gerrymandering law, particularly the Court's consideration of whether states can consider race in drawing districts intended to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which has sparked significant debate about potential "racial gerrymandering" ^[6].

By asking about the Court's "role" without acknowledging the directional impact of recent rulings, the question inadvertently obscures the fact that the Court has been actively dismantling rather than strengthening anti-gerrymandering protections.