Fact check: What role does the Supreme Court play in regulating partisan gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court plays a limited and controversial role in regulating partisan gerrymandering, having effectively removed federal oversight through key rulings. The Court's landmark 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause declared that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering disputes, leaving such matters to state courts and legislatures ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This ruling established that partisan gerrymandering is not illegal under the U.S. Constitution and federal judges cannot protect against unfair maps ^{[4] [3]}.

More recently, the Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP further weakened voting rights protections by making it easier for states to claim their redistricting maps are drawn for partisan rather than racial reasons ^[5]. This decision has effectively allowed partisan gerrymandering to continue while making racial gerrymandering challenges more difficult to prove.

The practical result is that politicians can gerrymander as long as they claim it's about politics, not race ^[3], significantly limiting the Court's role as a check on redistricting abuses.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question doesn't capture several critical aspects of the Supreme Court's impact on gerrymandering:

• State-level remedies remain available: While federal courts are largely out of the picture, states can still challenge legislative districts on racial grounds, and some states have implemented their own limits on redistricting ^[4].
• Ongoing litigation continues: Organizations like the ACLU are actively pursuing multiple court cases challenging partisan gerrymandering, including Callais v. Landry, New York Communities for Change v. Nassau County, and League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander ^[6].
• Democratic impact: The Court's decisions can significantly shape election outcomes and potentially dilute minority voting power ^[1], leading to the dilution of voting power of communities of color and undermining fair representation in Congress ^[5].
• Alternative solutions: Some experts advocate for independent redistricting commissions or proportional representation to address the democratic deficit created by gerrymandering ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is neutrally framed and doesn't contain explicit misinformation. However, it may inadvertently suggest that the Supreme Court plays an active regulatory role in partisan gerrymandering, when the reality is that the Court has deliberately removed itself from this oversight function.

The question could benefit from acknowledging that the Court's current stance represents a significant shift away from federal intervention, effectively giving states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[2]. This framing would better reflect the Court's actual position of judicial restraint rather than active regulation in this area.