Judicial Review, Redistricting, and the Politicalization of the Court

Redistricting exerts significant influence over political power by deciding who rises to prominence and authority. Through the manipulation of electoral maps in a process known as gerrymandering, individuals can limit the voting power of minority populations and allow candidates to prevail who otherwise may not. Additionally, scholarship lacks consensus on the negative or positive influences of redistricting (e.g., Gelman and King; Lain), requiring a deeper understanding of its interactions with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). To that end, this study has two objectives: first, to determine how individuals fare in redistricting cases before SCOTUS during the 1963–2023 October terms; and second, to understand which factors, such as partisanship or race as a major issue in the case, explain these results. To answer these questions, the study conducted a statistical analysis of 92 redistricting cases decided by SCOTUS. The study finds that the percentage of cases decided pro-state remains constant irrespective of the independent variables included. By contrast, the results show that characteristics such as differing political parties, urban/rural interests, political realignments, and race influence the success of individual litigants. Of particular note was the politicization of the Roberts Court and its hostility toward the plight of individual litigants.