The Constitutional Prohibition of Extreme Voting Dilution

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state’s redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina’s redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.

 Resources  

• Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript)
• Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper 
• Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause 
• Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause
• Gill v. Whitford (2018)
• Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) 

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. 

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. 

You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.