Simple question: Anti-Gerrymandering law - constitutional?

[MillennialModerate]

We often talk about the composition of the house and if the Dems can pass HR1 and some kind of anti gerrymandering law. Isn’t that unconstitutional to interfere in which the ways a state draws its districts and so on? Simple question

[GALeftist]

No (see: voting rights act of 1965)

[Nyvin]

Article 1 Section 4

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Unconstitutional to do to districts for state level elections? Absolutely. But not federal.

[AndyHogan14]

Article 1 Section 4

Here's the original text for the OP:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It won't even come up for a vote since Manchin said he won't relent on Filibuster

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

States can, unfortunately, do whatever they want with *state* legislative boundaries, but congressionally Congress has that power. HR1 is probably the best thing long term to spend all our political capital on.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

No, congress has the explicit authority to set limits on the time, place, and manner of federal elections.

[Skill and Chance]

For federal congressional districts, almost surely constitutional

For state legislative districts, likely unconstitutional

[Nyvin]

For federal congressional districts, almost surely constitutional

For state legislative districts, likely unconstitutional

Not likely,  the VRA is applied to state leg. districts all the time, and that's based on the same constitutional premise as VRA issues on congressional districts.   

The Equal Protections Clause (14th) is also used to regulate state legislative districts too, like in the one person one vote standard.   HR1 could probably be based off either article 1 or the 14th amendment.

[Dereich]

It has always been the position of the conservatives on the court that only Congress can address partisan gerrymandering. Vieth, especially, lays out the conservative position against judicial remedies to gerrymandering and is full of classic Scalia arguing so I'd recommend it.

It is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to “make or alter” those districts if it wished.

Many objected to the congressional oversight established by this provision. In the course of the debates in the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinkney and John Rutledge moved to strike the relevant language. James Madison responded in defense of the provision that Congress must be given the power to check partisan manipulation of the election process by the States

As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protection for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerrymandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).

Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).

Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H. R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).

We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.

[Skill and Chance]

For federal congressional districts, almost surely constitutional

For state legislative districts, likely unconstitutional

Not likely,  the VRA is applied to state leg. districts all the time, and that's based on the same constitutional premise as VRA issues on congressional districts.   

The Equal Protections Clause (14th) is also used to regulate state legislative districts too, like in the one person one vote standard.   HR1 could probably be based off either article 1 or the 14th amendment.

The constitutional basis for laws against racial gerrymandering and for laws against racial discrimination more generally is different and much stronger.  A federal law regulating partisan gerrymandering would likely be comparable to the federal law lowering the voting age to 18 that was challenged in Oregon v. Mitchell.  It was upheld for federal elections but struck down for state and local elections.  That precedent likely keeps congress from imposing commissions for state legislative or municipal districts.