On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two major cases concerning partisan gerrymandering in March, accepting appeals of 2018 rulings that struck down North Carolina's entire congressional map for GOP gerrymandering and deemed Maryland's 6th Congressional District unconstitutional as a result of Democratic gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the court's decision to hear these cases now—after it failed to curtail gerrymandering last year before Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced former swing Justice Anthony Kennedy—means it's highly likely to result in a landmark setback in the fight for fairer maps.
With Kennedy as the key vote in major cases last year, the court refused to resolve these same lawsuits, sending them back to the lower courts. These district courts affirmed their findings that both maps were unconstitutional, in part because officials in both Maryland and North Carolina actually admitted they'd engaged in partisan gerrymandering. However, Kennedy's departure from the bench means the five ultra-partisan Republican justices are unlikely to curtail gerrymandering.
Even a best-case scenario would probably only leave reformers with the ability to challenge the most egregious gerrymanders where partisan intent is as openly on display as it was in these cases. Such an outcome would be of limited value, though, as legislators would inevitably adapt to craft stealthier gerrymanders. Consequently, the best ways forward for fighting gerrymandering are breaking single-party grips on state governments, using ballot initiatives, establishing progressive state supreme courts that can use state constitutional protections to ban gerrymandering, and passing national reforms at the congressional level like House Democrats are proposing.
