{"id":252,"date":"2019-07-24T14:15:30","date_gmt":"2019-07-24T14:15:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/ohio\/articles\/rucho-v-common-cause-is-over-now-what\/"},"modified":"2019-07-24T14:15:30","modified_gmt":"2019-07-24T14:15:30","slug":"rucho-v-common-cause-is-over-now-what","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/ohio\/uk\/articles\/rucho-v-\u0441\u043f\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430-\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430-\u0437\u0430\u043a\u0456\u043d\u0447\u0438\u043b\u0430\u0441\u044f-\u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u0440-\u0449\u043e\/","title":{"rendered":"\u0421\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0443 \u0420\u0443\u0447\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438 \u0441\u043f\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u0456\u043d\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043e. \u0449\u043e \u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u0440"},"template":"","class_list":["post-252","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"Some of us have been wondering what legal standards still apply following the SCOTUS failure to act on partisan gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. Fortunately, Common Cause's Dan Vicu\u00f1a put together some information for us! ","featured_image":null,"article_type":153,"authors":null,"related_issues":false,"related_work":[114],"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_image_and_text","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_image_and_text":{"manually_curate":true,"image_side":"left","row_color":"blue","work":null,"kicker_text":"","title":"","summary":"Redistricting reformers in Ohio and across the nation were deeply disappointed in the recent decisions in\u00a0Rucho v. Common Cause<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Lamone v. Benisek<\/a><\/em>: the majority of the court failed to defend democratic principles when it found that federal courts do not have the legal tools needed to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. As a result, plaintiffs cannot challenge maps in federal court using a partisan gerrymandering claim. Nevertheless<\/strong>,\u00a0these decisions did not give legislators a blank check to do whatever they want when it comes to redrawing district lines.\r\n\r\nHere in Ohio we have provisions in place that will protect us from the worst distortions of gerrymandering. We recently changed the Ohio Constitution to address both state legislative (2015) and congressional (2018) redistricting reform.\u00a0 New rules keeping communities together and creating greater transparency mean the mapmaking process in 2021 will be much different from how it was in 2011, with more guardrails and protections for voters versus politicians.\r\n\r\nIn the future (as in the past), state courts will still be able to step in to determine whether congressional, state legislative, or other districts violate the state constitution.<\/strong>\u00a0One such lawsuit succeeded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania\u2019s congressional map to be redrawn before the 2018 election. Common Cause is currently suing in North Carolina state court in a challenge to North Carolina General Assembly districts under the North Carolina Constitution.\r\n\r\nSome state constitutions, like the\u00a0Ohio Constitution<\/a>, contain language to protect voters that the U.S. Constitution does not contain.<\/strong>\u00a0See a list of states with language in their state constitutions that could provide stronger voting rights protections<\/a>. State court interpretations of state constitutions are generally not reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nHere are some\u00a0additional legal standards\u00a0<\/strong>that will continue to give voters a measure of protection against the rigging of district lines.\r\n\r\nRacial gerrymandering (14th\u00a0Amendment):<\/strong> When race is the predominant consideration in drawing district lines such that the mapmaker subordinates race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations, a court must apply strict scrutiny. This means that the mapmaker must demonstrate that the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. If the mapmaker cannot do so, the map violates the equal protection clause of the 14thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution. Relevant case law includes\u00a0Shaw v. Reno,\u00a0Shaw v. Hunt, and\u00a0Miller v. Johnson,\u00a0and\u00a0Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama<\/em>.\r\n\r\nMajority-Minority Districts (Voting Rights Act, section 2):<\/strong>\u00a0Gingles v. Thonburg<\/em>requires mapmakers to draw majority-minority districts in a community when:\r\n