Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Catch up on the day's biggest business stories
Subscribe to Axios Closer for insights into the day’s business news and trends and why they matter
Stay on top of the latest market trends
Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.
Sports news worthy of your time
Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.
Tech news worthy of your time
Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.
Get the inside stories
Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
Demonstrators gather outside of the Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford last October. Photo: Olivier Douliery/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped what could have been a landmark challenge to purely partisan gerrymandering in two cases, citing procedural faults with challenges brought by Democrats in Wisconsin and Republicans in Maryland.
Why it matters: Both decisions are a setback for critics seeking constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering, in which legislatures controlled by one party draws electoral maps in favor of its candidates in an attempt to preserve a political advantage. The high court has never struck down a voting map as a partisan gerrymander — and that question will still have to wait for another day.
The backdrop: The Maryland case centered on the state's 6th congressional district, which was redrawn in 2011 to include parts of the heavily Democratic Montgomery County. While Republican voters argued that the district was unfairly drawn, a lower court had ruled against the plaintiffs' request to discontinue the use of the current map ahead of the 2018 midterm election.
- Wisconsin Republicans had appealed a lower court ruling that struck down the state's 2011 legislative map, calling it unconstitutional due to its skew in the GOP's favor. The court later ordered the state to draw a new map by November 2017, a request the Supreme Court blocked when it agreed to hear the case last year.
What SCOTUS said:
- In the Wisconsin case, the court said the challengers did not have the legal standing to bring the case, sending it back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
- In the Maryland case, the plaintiffs had waited six years to file their claim and didn’t show the potential for irreparable harm because any ruling wouldn't affect this year's midterm elections, the court said. It also affirmed the lower court’s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction. Proceedings will continue in lower courts.