In the News, On the Bar Exam: The Blue-nami and Gerrymandering
Last night's “Blue-nami” provides a timely Constitutional Law lesson about gerrymandering.
Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, President Trump encouraged Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional districts to increase Republican representation in the House. In Texas, for example, Republicans redrew district boundaries hoping to gain five additional seats. Other states followed, while Democrats responded with their own redistricting efforts, including in California.
But the strategy largely backfired. Despite the Republican-friendly maps, Democrats won numerous targeted districts, helping them regain control of the House. In Texas, Republicans may actually lose seats despite their redistricting efforts.
So what does this have to do with the bar exam?
Gerrymandering involves manipulating electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular political party or group. Two common techniques are:
Packing: Concentrating opposing voters into a few districts.
Cracking: Splitting opposing voters among multiple districts to dilute their voting strength.
But here's the important Constitutional Law distinction: Not all gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Partisan Gerrymandering: In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions in federal courts. State courts and state laws, however, may provide remedies.
Racial Gerrymandering: Under Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequent decisions, when race predominates in drawing district boundaries, strict scrutiny applies under the Equal Protection Clause.
Voting Rights Act: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may separately prohibit districting plans that unlawfully dilute minority voting strength.
So, when confronted with a gerrymandering question on the bar exam, ask: Were the boundaries drawn predominantly based on race or for partisan advantage?
That distinction could determine the correct answer.
