The Stalled Redistricting Commission
A state with 8 congressional districts passed a ballot initiative creating a 5-member independent redistricting commission: two members chosen by the majority party, two by the minority party, and a fifth chosen by the other four. The fifth member must be an unaffiliated voter. After six months, the four partisan members cannot agree on the fifth member. The state constitution requires a map 90 days before the filing deadline, now 45 days away. The legislature, controlled by the majority party, offers a fallback: it will draw the map itself if the commission misses the deadline. A minority-party legislator sues, arguing the fallback unconstitutionally delegates redistricting to a body that will gerrymander. Meanwhile, a civil-rights group notes the current map has only 1 of 8 districts where a racial minority is a majority of the population, though that group is 22% of the state.
1. Identify the constitutional and legal issues raised by the fallback provision and the deadlock. Which constitutional provisions and precedents are most relevant, and what is the likely outcome of the lawsuit?
Read the worked answer
The core issues are (1) the Elections Clause (Art. I, §4) giving state legislatures authority over congressional elections, subject to Congress; (2) the Guarantee Clause and the Court's reluctance to adjudicate redistricting as a political question; (3) equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims; and (4) the nondelegation claim.
The nondelegation argument is weak: states routinely delegate redistricting to commissions, and the Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission upheld voter-created commissions as an exercise of the state's legislative power. The fallback to the legislature is not an unconstitutional delegation because the legislature is the default body under the Elections Clause. The court is unlikely to enjoin the fallback simply because it may produce a partisan map; Rucho v. Common Cause holds that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable in federal court. The racial-composition point is different: a map that dilutes minority voting strength can support a claim under §2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is statutory and justiciable, even where a constitutional claim fails. The likely outcome: the fallback stands, but the legislature's map is vulnerable to a VRA §2 challenge if it fails the Gingles preconditions (compactness, political cohesion, majority bloc voting).
2. The civil-rights group argues the 1-of-8 minority-majority districts violate the Constitution. Assess this claim under the relevant precedents and explain what facts would matter.
Read the worked answer
The claim is not self-evident. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause bars intentional racial discrimination in districting (Gomillion v. Lightfoot), and Shaw v. Reno requires that race not be the predominant factor without compelling justification. But there is no constitutional entitlement to districts in proportion to population; Mobile v. Bolden and later cases require proof of discriminatory purpose or effect. Under the VRA, Thornburg v. Gingles sets three preconditions: the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; it is politically cohesive; and the majority votes as a bloc to defeat minority-preferred candidates. At 22% of the state with 8 districts, the group could plausibly constitute a majority in roughly 1-2 districts, so the 1-of-8 figure is not facially disproportionate. Key facts: geographic concentration, racially polarized voting evidence, the state's history of discrimination, and whether an alternative map could create a second opportunity district without sacrificing traditional redistricting principles. The claim is strongest as a VRA §2 claim, not a constitutional one.