Even as voting rights advocates urge the U.S. Supreme Court to “be on the right side of history” by putting voters and not lawmakers first, the court’s right-wing majority indicated Tuesday it may refuse to impose constitutional limits on extreme partisan gerrymandering.

“Citizens in all 50 states deserve to be able to choose their representatives—and not the other way around.”
—Paul Smith, CLC

“A familiar pattern repeated itself,” the Washington Post reported Tuesday after two hours of oral arguments about politically motivated maps. “Liberal justices saw it as a threat to democracy that requires action while conservatives wondered how courts could ever decide when a political process becomes too political.”

Justices on Tuesday heard arguments for both Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause, which has been consolidated with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina (LWVNC).

The political maps in these cases, which local leaders have acknowledged were intentionally drawn to benefit the political parties in power, gave an advantage to Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland.

“Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of rigging the system by drawing lines to maximize their own party’s advantage, so these cases present the justices with a unique opportunity,” said Paul Smith, vice president at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and counsel of record for Rucho v. LWVNC. “Voters nationwide are ready for a ruling that will put the voters and not lawmakers first.”

Recent nationwide polling commissioned by CLC has shown (pdf) “broad, bipartisan support for the Supreme Court to set clear rules for when gerrymandering violates the Constitution,” and advocates for voting rights gathered outside of the court building in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday.

“The court needs to be on the right side of history and stop politicians from infringing on the people’s right to freely choose their representatives through voting,” said Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn, calling the case in North Carolina “the most egregious partisan gerrymander the Supreme Court has ever seen.”