Is the Supreme Court Finally Ready to Rule Against Gerrymandering?

Chris Kleponis/Avalon via ZUMA

Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy has long been the only conservative justice who’s sympathetic to arguments against gerrymandering. The problem is that, like the other conservatives, he’s been unable to figure out a concrete standard to use. How do you tell if a map is gerrymandered so much that it’s unconstitutional?

Today’s big gerrymandering hearing went much the same way. Ari Berman reports:

Kennedy was the first justice to ask a question in Tuesday’s opening arguments in the case, Gill v. Whitford. “Suppose the Court…decided that this is a First Amendment issue?” Kennedy asked Wisconsin’s solicitor general, implying that extreme partisan gerrymandering could violate the right to free speech by preventing those in the minority—in this case Wisconsin Democrats denied representation—from having an equal say in the political process.

Kennedy also seemed to suggest that the court could set a standard for when gerrymandering crosses a line….Kennedy [suggested] that a manageable standard could be whether a map was drawn with the “overriding concern
” to “have a maximum number of votes for party X or party Y.” He asked whether such a scenario would violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court usually sets standards in fairly non-concrete ways, so I’m not sure why gerrymandering should be any different. Kennedy’s proposed standard probably is manageable.

But the thing that surprises me is that no one mentioned what I consider the big issue in gerrymandering: computers. When gerrymandering was a human exercise, there were effectively limits on just how bad it could be. With computerization, it takes only a few seconds to produce the most highly gerrymandered map possible. This is an example of a quantitative change so big that it become qualitative—and the court should respond to that. But how? I happen to favor a standard called the “partisan symmetry rule,” which I described earlier this year:

If gerrymandering is now a brute-force, computer-driven activity, the best answer is a brute-force computer-driven rule. A few decades ago, applying the partisan symmetry rule would have been all but impossible, but today it’s easy. It’s also something that can be easily defined, and is therefore pretty easily managed by the courts.

Whether the court adopts a specific rule or a more general standard, it’s time to do something about this. Times have changed, and extreme partisan gerrymandering is just too easy. One way or another, they need to agree on a way to rein it in.


In 2014, before Donald Trump announced his run for president, we knew we had to do something different to address the fundamental challenge facing journalism: how hard-hitting reporting that can hold the powerful accountable can survive as the bottom falls out of the news business.

Being a nonprofit, we started planning The Moment for Mother Jones, a special campaign to raise $25 million for key investments to make Mother Jones the strongest watchdog it can be. Five years later, readers have stepped up and contributed an astonishing $23 million in gifts and future pledges. This is an incredible statement from the Mother Jones community in the face of huge threats—both economic and political—against the free press.

Read more about The Moment and see what we've been able to accomplish thanks to readers' incredible generosity so far, and please join them today. Your gift will be matched dollar for dollar, up to $500,000 total, during this critical moment for journalism.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.


We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.