When Maryland state officials redrew the map for their state’s federal congressional districts in 2011, they were accused of engaging in partisan gerrymandering as a way of retaliating against the First Amendment activities of voters in Western Maryland.

Now that this controversy has become before the Court a second time, how will the Supreme Court deal with partisan gerrymandering? Walter Olson of the Cato Institute explores the history of partisan gerrymandering and the theory of First Amendment retaliation in Lamone v. Benisek. Oral argument is March 26, 2019.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.

Learn more about Walter Olson:


Related Links & Differing Views:

SCOTUSblog: “Justices to tackle partisan gerrymandering … again”

Columbia Law Review: “Partisan Gerrymandering, the First Amendment, and the Political Outsider”

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: “Defining the Constitutional Question in Partisan Gerrymandering”

The Federalist Society: “The End of Partisan Redistricting?: Benisek v. Lamone”

Washington Post: “Take it from us governors: Politicians shouldn’t draw electoral maps”

The Wall Street Journal: “A Gerrymander Mulligan”