Supreme Court hears redistricting cases that could entrench Republican rule

The Supreme Court heard two cases Monday, one from Virginia and one from North Carolina, in which the states were defending redistricting that solidified Republican rule. The question before the court is basically whether the redistricting was based on politics, which is constitutional, or race, which is not.

After two hours of oral arguments by the same set of attorneys, it appeared the court might uphold a federal district court decision striking down the North Carolina congressional maps and send the Virginia state legislative maps approved by a separate lower court back for more work.

Several of the justices expressed frustration that unless they define clearly what is allowed and what is not, they could be left with what Justice Stephen Breyer called "a set of standards that district courts can't apply, which will try to separate sheep from goats."

The two cases represented a continuation of the court's work in the area of racial gerrymandering, which Breyer lamented had not been resolved by the most recent decision he wrote for the court last year. The 5-4 ruling said when it comes to black voters in Alabama, "simply maintaining percentages in an effort to prevent retrogression ... is too mechanical an approach."

SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe notes that the prevailing sentiment among the justices during arguments was this: "Justices of all ideological stripes are tired of redistricting cases, and they would really prefer to leave the business of drawing and reviewing legislative maps to the legislature." 

To that end, the justices seemed to be considering issuing opinions that might not immediately resolve the two cases before them, but which could give more concrete guidance to courts reviewing future racial gerrymandering claims. Whether they can coalesce around such rulings remains to be seen. […]

The court’s eventual ruling could be a complicated one.