Freedom of Association, Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering, Justiciability and the Unmistakable Political Question Controversy

Document Type


Publication Title

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

Publication Date


Date Added



The issue to be addressed is whether partisan gerrymandering is a political question not capable of judicial resolution by federal courts, or whether partisan gerrymandering is instead a politicized issue that justices on the Court intentionally do not want to address at this time because they want to remain politicized while not appearing to be a politicized Supreme Court. The Court on June 27, 2019, in a 5-4 decision, held that partisan gerrymandering allegations are political issues that federal courts should not consider. By now, it should be common knowledge that all of the justices who voted to accept the view that partisan gerrymandering is a political question were appointed by a Republican president, while all of the justices who voted to hear the partisan gerrymandering issue on the merits were appointed by a president who identified as a Democrat. I reject the Court’s analysis and conclusion that partisan gerrymandering is a political question, and argue that the Court is obligated to resolve partisan First Amendment gerrymandering issues to redress the injuries suffered by plaintiffs. The Supreme Court should address partisan gerrymandering issues on the merits.


Voting rights, Election law, Gerrymandering, Supreme Court


Civil Rights and Discrimination | Constitutional Law | Election Law


J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University