MBE Rules · Constitutional Law
Partisan Gerrymandering
Rucho v. Common Cause
The rule
Partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions in federal court for lack of judicially manageable standards; racial gerrymandering remains justiciable under equal protection.
In plain English
Partisan gerrymandering occurs when district boundaries are drawn to favor one political party over another, and courts generally do not intervene in these cases because there are no clear standards for judges to apply. However, racial gerrymandering, which involves drawing districts based on race, can be challenged in court under the Equal Protection Clause.
Worked example
In a state, the legislature redraws congressional district lines to ensure that the majority party retains control, diluting the influence of voters from the opposing party. A group of voters challenges this redistricting in federal court, claiming it unfairly disadvantages them. The court dismisses the case, stating that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions.
Memory hook
Partisan gerrymandering is a political game; courts won't play.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students confuse partisan and racial gerrymandering, leading them to incorrectly apply justiciability standards. Be careful to distinguish between the two types of gerrymandering.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve fact patterns where district lines are manipulated for political advantage, requiring students to identify whether the issue is partisan or racial gerrymandering and its justiciability.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.