In a 5-4 vote along party lines, the Supreme Court has decided that federal courts have no role in regulating political districts drawn for partisan gain, or “gerrymandering.” According to the Associated Press, “the court’s conservative, Republican-appointed majority says that voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute.”

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.” She then added that gerrymandered maps “debased and dishonored our democracy.”

MASSIVE blow against efforts to combat partisan gerrymandering. Roberts holds in 5-4 ruling in North Carolina case that partisan gerrymandering is NOT justiciable at all https://t.co/DmhSZuVLjI

— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) June 27, 2019

This is an absolutely insane opinion by Roberts, saying that no matter how extreme partisan gerrymandering is, courts can't strike them down. Will give a green light to even more extreme gerrymandering in next round of redistricting after 2020

— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) June 27, 2019

This decision comes in response to challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Maryland Democratic district; the court rejected both challenges. NBC writes that gerrymandering critics believe that the situation in North Carolina was “so extreme that the court could not avoid striking down the congressional redistricting plan. After the 2010 census, the state Legislature drew a map that was intended to maintain the partisan breakdown of its congressional delegation — 10 Republicans and three Democrats.”

This ruling on gerrymandering is exactly why it is not enough to just win the next election. The Supreme Court is helping Republicans *rig* the elections. Democrats need a *proactive* plan to confront the partisan capture of the Court.

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) June 27, 2019

BREAKING: SCOTUS rules that partisan gerrymandering cases are a political question, meaning that courts can't decide them. This allows gerrymandering to continue and flourish.

It's now in the hands of voters across the nation to hold legislators to account and demand fair maps.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 27, 2019

The result of this case is expected to have considerable repercussions going into the 2020 election and the redrawing of electoral boundaries in 2021. From The Huffington Post:

The court’s decision ensures state lawmakers will have virtually unlimited license to choose the voters who elect them. By packing the opposing party’s voters into as few districts as possible or spreading them out among many districts, lawmakers can make it next to impossible for the other party to win a majority of legislative or congressional seats. 

Since the GOP controls more state gubernatorial and legislative offices than the Democrats, the court’s decision could entrench Republican rule.

But gerrymandering is sometimes unpopular on both sides of the aisle. From The Wall Street Journal:

Polls show that both Republican and Democratic voters disapprove of partisan gerrymandering, and a number of Republican politicians have joined the predominantly Democratic opposition to the practice, including Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and about 20 current and former members of Congress who signed Supreme Court briefs backing the challengers.

As such, some states have taken steps to try and reign in gerrymandering. According to Politico, voters in California and Arizona have opted to place control of the redistricting process in the hands of independent commissions. Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Utah have also approved similar ballot initiatives.