You’re reading State Court Report Every other week newsletter. Subscribe to receive in your inbox.
in Rucho v. Common causesthe Supreme Court has closed the court door to challenge partisan gerrymandering under the US Constitution. The 2019 ruling changed the legal battle over the partisan impact of rezoning on the state. The consequences of these legal challenges are mixed and discussed below, with more recent diverse judgments from Utah and South Carolina. The results are state-by-state patchwork, especially when it comes to drawing out parliamentary election lines.
A new generation of legal battles are also emerging. Texas and Missouri have already passed new Republican gerrymanders after President Trump convened to control a small Republican majority. In November, Californians vote to amend the constitution to allow the state to bypass the independent commission on district change and replace the maps drawn by the commission with temporary democratic drawing maps for a decade’s balance.
Federal law plays an important role in these redrawings. State must adhere to the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution when pulling out new maps, and in Texas federal lawsuits argue that new maps are racist. But it is a state law (usually a state constitution) that governs whether a mid-term constituency change is legally approved, whether it has the authority to draw a new district, and the criteria that can be considered in the map drawing process. In Missouri, two state lawsuits filed this month against the map of the state’s new legislature alleges that the state constitution prohibits rezoning in the medium term.
State law also governs future initiatives or other efforts to amend the state constitution. In August, the California Supreme Court rejected an emergency petition attempting to block a special election in November, in which voters consider amending their districts.
However, in some states, mid-aged gerrymandering predominates, while in Utah, court oversight is now being redrawn. Treatment Gerrymander map. In 2018, Utah voters passed a statutory initiative aimed at limiting partisan gerrymandering. The new law established a rezoning committee and other procedural safeguards, deliberately or unfairly endorsing political parties in map drawing. The Congress was not hindered. It passed laws that abolished the proposition and established a partisan process.
The lawsuits continued, and last year the Utah Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling recognising fundamental rights under the state constitution to change or reform government through the civic initiative. The court sent the case to the court to assess the conduct of Congress under this standard. In August, a lower court ruled that legislative actions violated the state’s constitutional protections. It carried out a process of reviving the proposition, blocking the use of state legislative maps in future elections, and creating new maps that matched the proposition’s rezoning criteria and requirements. Last week, the state Supreme Court rejected a petition for a stay by the state legislature. In other words, Utahns are on track to vote under the new map in 2026.
Most state courts have since heard allegations of partisan gerrymandering. Rucho They agreed that their constitution or other state laws have restrictions on practice. However, last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the challenge of partisan gerrymandering to the map of the state’s legislature, following the courts in Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina, as a “political issue” that is not suitable for judicial resolutions. (Disclosure: The Brennan Center has filed an Amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.)
The South Carolina High Court emphasized that the state’s constitutional provisions and laws do not directly address partisan gerrymandering. He concluded that other provisions, such as the state’s free election clause, would be applied narrowly to protect the right to vote and count each vote equally.
The Supreme Court wrote his consent and argued that the court had not created a “category rules that all future claims of excessive partisan gerrymandering exceed judicial review,” but it was not clear what kind of claims could remain. However, the focus of consent was the damage caused by Rucho. The observed consent encouraged the state legislature. He argued that state law is not the best forum for resolving partisan gerrymandering, as it requires the narrow view of “thwarting the state’s Supreme Court from inevitably considering the full consequences of gerrymandering decisions in other states.” Such harm continues unless the Supreme Court “returns to the dispute.”
Consent becomes a matter of collective action that comes when legislative gerrymandering restrictions are left to state law. On this side, it is worth noting from another observation. Rucho: When it comes to parliamentary maps, parliament also has the power to curb partisan gerrymandering.
Alicia Bannon is Editor-in-Chief State Court Report. She is also the director of the Brennan Judicial Center’s Judicial Program.
Suggested Quote: Alicia Bannon, Next Battle of Partizan Gerrimanderingsᴛᴀᴛcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Sep. 25, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysisis-opinion/next-round-partisan-gerrymaring-fights
