Rucho v. Common Cause

139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In the Rucho case, the Republican legislators leading the redistricting effort instructed their mapmaker to use political data to draw a map that would produce a congressional delegation of ten Republicans and three Democrats. Without any doubt, the two Republicans chairing the redistricting committee were blatantly and openly against any Democrat ever winning any seats at all. stated, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. The map was drawn with the aim of electing ten Republicans and three Democrats because he did “not believe it [would be] possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats.” This litigation began in August 2016, when the North Carolina Democratic Party, Common Cause (a nonprofit organization), and 14 individual North Carolina voters (Ps) sued the two lawmakers who had led the redistricting effort and other state defendants in Federal District Court. Ps alleged that the Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting the electoral strength of Democratic voters. They claimed that the Plan violated their First Amendment rights by retaliating against supporters of Democratic candidates on the basis of their political beliefs. They asserted that the Plan usurped the right of “the People” to elect their preferred candidates for Congress, in violation of the requirement in Article I, §2, of the Constitution that Members of the House of Representatives be chosen “by the People of the several States.” They alleged that the Plan violated the Elections Clause by exceeding the State’s delegated authority to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for Members of Congress. The three-judge District Court unanimously concluded that the 2016 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause and Article I of the Constitution. They held that the Plan violated the First Amendment. Rucho (Ds) appealed directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. §1253. The case was remanded and the District Court again struck down the 2016 Plan. Ds again appealed to the Supreme Court. The second case is Lamone v. Benisek, where the Maryland Legislature-dominated by Democrats-undertook to redraw the lines of that State’s eight congressional districts. The Governor later testified that his aim was to “use the redistricting process to change the overall composition of Maryland’s congressional delegation to 7 Democrats and 1 Republican by flipping” one district. A decision was made to go for the Sixth which had been held by a Republican for nearly two decades. The 2011 Plan accomplished that by moving roughly 360,000 voters out of the Sixth District and moving 350,000 new voters in. The Plan reduced the number of registered Republicans in the Sixth District by about 66,000 and increased the number of registered Democrats by about 24,000. It succeeded in flipping the Sixth District. A Democrat has held the seat ever since. Ps alleged that the Plan violated the First Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2, of the Constitution. A District Court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The District Court permanently enjoined the State from using the 2011 Plan and ordered it to promptly adopt a new plan for the 2020 election. Ds appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 28 U. S. C. §1253.