Partisan Gerrymandering and the U.S Supreme Court - What is the Problem Represented to be?

Abstract: A verdict in 2019 from the U.S Supreme Court that resulted in the withdrawal of the power of lower federal courts to judge in cases of partisan gerrymandering was a contested and debated one, both inside and outside the courtroom. Two different blocs out of the nine judges could be seen in the vote, one that voted for and one that voted against this decision, with the former bloc winning five to four. Through the theoretical framework of Max Weber and legitimacy, and the methodological discourse approach given by Carol Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be?’, the two most recent cases of partisan gerrymandering brought before the court, Rucho v. Common Cause and Gill v. Whitford, gets analyzed as to reveal potential differences between the judges representation of the problem with partisan gerrymandering. The results show that although the different blocs both conceive partisan gerrymandering as problematic, they differ too what degree and how the potential solution best manifest itself. The language used frames the problem in different context within the two blocs, and in different levels of the practice as a democratic threat.