On Redistricting, Supreme Court Not Quite Ready to Change the Rules

The justices heard arguments on Wednesday in a Maryland case that could, for the first time, limit partisan gerrymandering. They didn't appear to have a consensus on how to address the problem.

Multiple courts around the country have determined this year that redistricting efforts can be so partisan that they violate the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't appear to be in a hurry to issue such a finding.

The court has now heard two partisan gerrymandering cases this term, with a third waiting in the wings. Although the first case, involving Assembly maps in Wisconsin, was heard in October, the court has yet to issue a ruling. The court heard an oral argument in the second case, which involves Maryland's congressional map, on Wednesday. The court may also consider North Carolina's congressional map.

The Maryland case, known as Benisek v. Lamone, turns on the question of whether Maryland's redistricting process, which eliminated the Republican advantage in one of the two congressional seats the party had controlled, violated the First Amendment rights of GOP voters who were being discriminated against because of their past voting history.

More