The Gerrymandering Crisis: How State Courts Became the Last Bastion of Democratic Integrity
Published
- 3 min read
The Battle Over Redistricting
Across the United States, a quiet but profound constitutional crisis is unfolding as state legislatures engage in aggressive partisan gerrymandering following the 2020 census. In Missouri, Republican lawmakers passed a congressional map that opponents argue severely distorts representation, prompting over 300,000 citizens to petition for a referendum to overturn it. Despite this overwhelming public response, Republican state officials including Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and Attorney General Catherine Hanaway are proceeding with implementing the map, claiming constitutional authority while ignoring the democratic process.
This Missouri controversy represents just one front in a nationwide battle over redistricting. As the article reveals, states including California, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, New York, and North Dakota are all engaged in various stages of map redrawing and legal challenges. The situation has become particularly dire since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision limiting federal court involvement in partisan gerrymandering cases, effectively pushing these critical democratic questions to state courts.
The Judicial Landscape Shift
The constitutional framework for addressing gerrymandering has undergone a radical transformation. With federal courts largely withdrawing from reviewing redistricting maps under recent Supreme Court precedents, state courts have emerged as the primary arbiters of fairness in representation. According to Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, all 50 state constitutions contain provisions that could constrain partisan gerrymandering, often including language about free elections and equal protection that doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution.
The University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative found that at least 10 state supreme courts have affirmed their authority to decide partisan gerrymandering cases. However, four state supreme courts—including Missouri’s—have determined they cannot review such claims, creating a patchwork of judicial standards across the country. This inconsistent application of constitutional principles threatens to create election outcomes that fundamentally undermine representative democracy.
The Human Cost of Gerrymandering
Behind the legal and political maneuvering lie real human consequences. The Missouri map specifically targets Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who has represented Kansas City for two decades, demonstrating how gerrymandering can silence longstanding voices and disrupt community representation. Meanwhile, citizens like Katharine Biele of the Utah League of Women Voters simply ask that lawmakers “redistrict based on population—fairly,” a modest request that speaks volumes about how far our system has strayed from basic democratic principles.
Republican state representatives like Utah’s Casey Snider argue that judicial intervention in redistricting violates separation of powers, while Indiana’s Greg Walker raised constitutional concerns about limiting jury trials in redistricting challenges. These debates reveal the tension between political power and constitutional safeguards that defines the current gerrymandering crisis.
The Assault on Constitutional Principles
What we are witnessing is nothing less than a systematic dismantling of core American democratic principles. The Founders designed our system with checks and balances precisely to prevent the accumulation of power that gerrymandering represents. When politicians choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives, we have fundamentally betrayed the social contract that underpins our republic.
The Missouri situation is particularly egregious because it represents such blatant disregard for democratic processes. Gathering 300,000 signatures represents an enormous civic effort—a clear expression of popular will that should be respected in any functioning democracy. That Republican officials would ignore this demonstration of civic engagement while relying on questionable legal opinions to implement their gerrymandered map demonstrates contempt for both the spirit and letter of constitutional governance.
State Courts: The Last Defense
State courts have become the unexpected guardians of democratic integrity in this crisis. As federal courts retreat from their constitutional role, state justices face unprecedented pressure to interpret state constitutional provisions regarding free elections, equal protection, and fair representation. The variation in how different state courts approach these questions reveals both the strength and vulnerability of our federal system.
The concept of “lockstepping”—where state courts interpret their constitutions in line with federal precedents—poses particular challenges. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to limit partisan gerrymandering, some state courts follow suit even when their state constitutions contain stronger protections. This judicial deference threatens to nullify the very constitutional safeguards that should protect citizens from political manipulation.
The Path Forward
We must recognize that gerrymandering represents more than just political gamesmanship—it constitutes a fundamental assault on representative democracy itself. When districts are drawn to ensure predetermined outcomes, elections become meaningless rituals rather than genuine expressions of popular will. This erosion of democratic legitimacy ultimately undermines public trust in all government institutions.
The solution requires both judicial courage and legislative reform. State courts must break from lockstepping when their constitutions provide stronger protections than federal law. Judges like those in Utah who stood against gerrymandering despite political pressure demonstrate the kind of judicial independence our system requires. Meanwhile, citizens must continue demanding independent redistricting commissions and transparency in the map-drawing process.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Democratic Integrity
The gerrymandering crisis represents a critical inflection point for American democracy. We are witnessing the corrosive effects of unlimited partisan ambition colliding with constitutional safeguards. The outcome of these battles in Missouri and other states will determine whether representative democracy survives as a meaningful concept or becomes merely a facade for raw political power.
As citizens, we must support organizations like People Not Politicians that fight for fair representation. We must demand that our elected officials respect constitutional principles over partisan advantage. And we must recognize that the preservation of democracy requires vigilance, engagement, and an unwavering commitment to the idea that government should derive its power from the consent of the governed—not from manipulated electoral maps.
The words of Richard von Glahn ring true: “If we need to continue to litigate to enforce our constitutional rights, we will.” This determination to defend democratic principles against partisan manipulation represents the best of American civic tradition. In state courts across the country, and in the hearts of citizens who refuse to accept corrupted representation, lies the hope for reclaiming the democratic integrity that gerrymandering threatens to destroy.