HRC Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Partisan Redistricting in Maryland and North Carolina

by HRC Staff

The Supreme Court considered challenges to partisan redistricting in two cases out of Maryland (Lamone v. Benisek) and North Carolina (Rucho v. Common Cause).

Today, HRC responded to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of partisan redistricting in two cases out of Maryland ( Lamone v. Benisek) and North Carolina (Rucho v. Common Cause)

“The right to vote is a central principle and bedrock of our democracy, and today’s Supreme Court decision is an attack on our fundamental rights and liberties,” said HRC Director of Strategic Initiatives Ben Needham. “LGBTQ and minority voters continue to face obstacle after obstacle in attaining equal and fair representation. We must continue to expand access to the ballot box and increase participation in our democracy, working alongside advocates like the NAACP, LCCHR, and Urban League to achieve that goal.”

Lamone v. Benisek: Maryland voters argued that Democratic state lawmakers enacted a congressional redistricting plan that intentionally diluted the impact of Republican votes in the state’s 6th Congressional District.

Rucho v. Common Cause: The North Carolina Democratic Party argued that Republican state lawmakers intentionally created a redistricting plan that disadvantaged Democratic candidates.

HRC has long called for action to protect and expand voting rights, and has included related legislation on its Congressional Scorecard. In addition to supporting the For the People Act ( H.R. 1), HRC and allied civil rights organizations continue to call for passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), critically important civil rights legislation that would ensure fair access to the ballot for all Americans is protected. In November, HRC President Chad Griffin joined NAACP President Derrick Johnson in a CNN op-ed on the relentless attacks against the voting rights of vulnerable communities.