The Woman Who Argued Rucho v. Common Cause Looks Back
March 26th marks the third anniversary of the landmark Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina (also known as Rucho v. Common Cause) Supreme Court oral arguments. This case challenged North Carolina’s 2016 redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision, that federal courts cannot make determinations on partisan gerrymandering, would have major consequences for representation across our democracy.
The decision set the stage for federal courts to take a hands-off approach when it comes to the redistricting process, shifting the responsibility to states. Since then, the League has seen a rise in challenges under state law that continue to target communities of color through gerrymandering and unfair maps. When this happens, communities are not represented equally.
To fully grasp how this impacts voters, we spoke with Allison Riggs, who was front and center on the Rucho v. LWVNC case. In 2019, Mrs. Riggs was chosen to represent the plaintiffs and argued the case before the Supreme Court. Now, Riggs, who is Co-Executive Director and Chief Counsel for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, gives us her first-hand account of what happened in the courts.