In America, no liberty is more fundamental than the right to freely choose our representatives through voting.
On June 27th the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in two landmark redistricting cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. In a 72-page decision written by Justice Roberts, the majority concluded it could not set a constitutional standard against partisan gerrymandering.
Common Cause v. Lewis
Common Cause is a plaintiff in a challenge to North Carolina’s state legislative maps. After some of the state House and state Senate districts were struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in 2017, leaders in the legislature redrew districts on partisan grounds. And it worked. In both the state House and state Senate elections in 2018, Democratic candidates won a majority of the statewide vote, but Republicans still won a substantial majority of the seats in each chamber. Common Cause sued on the grounds that the 2017 plans are unconstitutional, invalid and impervious to the will of the voters. Common Cause asked the state court to rule that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, to prevent the defendants from using the 2017 Plans for the 2020 primary and general elections, and to establish new plans for the 2020 elections that comply with the state constitution.
Rucho v. Common Cause
Common Cause was a plaintiff in a challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map that the U.S. Supreme Court heard earlier this year. After the map was struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in 2016, leaders in the legislature announced that they would redraw districts with the explicit intent to ensure that 10 of 13 remain in Republican control. Common Cause sued on the grounds that the new districts are an illegal partisan gerrymander. The trial court ruled in our favor on all counts and in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho, a case that was consolidated with ours. The North Carolina General Assembly appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was decided on June 27, 2019.
Lamone V. Benisek
In a case originally brought by a Common Cause Maryland member, Steve Shapiro, plaintiffs argue that Maryland’s congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Following the 2010 census, the Democratic governor and Democrats in the legislature successfully conspired to draw districts that would ensure the defeat of one of the state’s two Republican members of Congress. After a unanimous vote in the U.S. Supreme Court allowing the case to proceed, the case went to trial. On November 7, 2018, the trial court ruled that Maryland's Sixth Congressional District violates the First Amendment rights of Maryland voters. Maryland appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was decided on June 27, 2019.
Gill v. Whitford
The Campaign Legal Center won a historic victory when a federal court struck down Wisconsin’s State Assembly map as an illegal partisan gerrymander. Wisconsin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October 2017. Common Cause is one of the lead organizations that managed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ efforts. The briefs demonstrated the broad and bipartisan support for an end to the manipulation of our legislative districts. On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court so the plaintiffs can demonstrate standing to sue.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Common Cause led the organizing of amicus briefs in a successful effort to defend the constitutionality of independent citizen redistricting commissions.
Evenwel v. Abbott
Common Cause offered a brief advancing a legal theory cited in parts of the decision that when drawing state legislative districts, effective constituent service requires counting every resident and not just voters. We also organized a separate brief signed by 19 counties and cities across the country in support of equal representation.
Abbott v. Perez
Following the 2010 census, the Texas State Legislature drew U.S. House of Representatives and Texas House of Representatives districts that weakened the voting strength of minority voters. Their goal was to ensure partisan advantage and the means of doing so was to make it harder for people of color to elect their candidates of choice. As the trial court ruled, this violates the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court heard Texas's appeal of the trial court decision, consolidated cases both titled Abbott v. Perez, on April 24, 2018. Common Cause filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff-appellees challenging the maps. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court ruling and held that only one state legislative district was an illegal racial gerrymander.
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner
Common Cause was a co-plaintiff in separate challenges to Florida’s congressional and state senate map. Common Cause’s impartial maps ultimately were adopted by Florida courts to remedy a blatant partisan gerrymander. Working with allies, we successfully demonstrated partisan intent and forced new districts to be drawn. In the case of both congressional and state senate districts, our impartial maps were adopted.
Hooker v. Illinois Board of Elections
We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Illinois supporting the placement of the Illinois Independent Map Amendment on the November ballot. Illinois is another state in which Democrats manipulated districts for partisan advantage. The court voted on a party-line basis to keep the reform initiative off of the 2016 ballot.
Favors v. Cuomo
In New York, Common Cause drew an impartial congressional map which was adopted in major part by the federal court, resulting in fair congressional districts in New York State. As a result, New York has become a battleground for control of Congress, with voters empowered to choose their own representatives in numerous districts.