Supreme Court has taken on multiple cases that might see rulings that reform redistricting for good

From the Brennan Center:

This is shaping up to be a blockbuster redistricting term for the Supreme Court. After hearing one redistricting case in November, the high court is slated to hear several more in the coming months that could dramatically alter the redistricting landscape.

The most closely watched of the group, Evenwel v. Abbott, which will be heard on December 8, has the Court revisiting the question of malapportionment for the first time since the 1960s. Today, every state draws districts using some form of total population — an approach with long roots in the nation’s redistricting history and practice. Challengers in Texas, though, say the Court should change the rule to require legislative districts be drawn to equalize the number of eligible voters rather than inhabitants. They argue that Texas’s maps are unconstitutional because the high concentration of non-citizens (and children) in urban parts of Texas means some Latino districts have many fewer voters than non-Latino ones.

A ruling for the Texas challengers would fundamentally alter redistricting and political representation in the United States and make it more difficult to draw majority-minority districts. It could also shift political power away from urban and suburban areas that have high numbers of children. That prospect has many watching the case with considerable unease.

Cases to Watch:

• Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission – Also on December 8, the Court will hear a case that will decide whether a state can vary the size of legislative districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act — or to favor a political party. Like Evenwel, Harris could have significant ramifications both for the future of voting rights and partisan gerrymandering.
• Wittman v. Personhuballah – The Supreme Court also recently agreed to hear a case concerning Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District. Federal courts have repeatedly struck down the district map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. State officials are no longer defending the map, but the plan’s Republican architects have asserted standing and asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue. The Court will hear the case, including the question of standing, early next year.

• Shapiro v. Mack – On November 4, the high court considered the vital, if more technical, issue of when a three-judge panel must be convened in redistricting cases. The case arises out of a dispute about partisan gerrymandering in Maryland, and may give the court a chance to express an opinion on the future viability of partisan gerrymandering claims. Indeed, during oral argument, Justice Breyer commented that the case raised “about as important a question as you can imagine.” A decision is expected early next year.