--- title: Supreme Court Gerrymandering Case Will Say Whose Votes Count description: The Supreme Court announced it will take a case about Wisconsin gerrymandering. It could say whether politicians can decide voting districts canonical: https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/ author: Thomas Wolf article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2017-06-21T22:45:15.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T07:54:15.177Z article:section: Ideas og:title: How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election og:description: And all elections that follow og:url: https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1f4d7d887227207c/6988d2b9ab6d772b586aeab1/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-wisconsin-scott-walker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 5445 og:image:height: 3063 og:image:alt: Supreme Court gerrymandering case og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election twitter:description: And all elections that follow twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1f4d7d887227207c/6988d2b9ab6d772b586aeab1/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-wisconsin-scott-walker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=755c190d-5853-4d73-aea9-f23d31921d98&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=755c190d-5853-4d73-aea9-f23d31921d98&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=755c190d-5853-4d73-aea9-f23d31921d98&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ## Video: Supreme Court Family Photo [Watch (HLS stream): Supreme Court Family Photo](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/bdKvieP2.m3u8) (0:59)  _Published 2017-06-01. Footage of the Supreme Court group photo, featuring new addition Neil Gorsuch._ by [Thomas Wolf](https://time.com/author/thomas-wolf/) ## Thomas Wolf Jun 21, 2017 10:45 PM UTC  The Supreme Court of the United States building on June 16, 2017 in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court of the United States building on June 16, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Jonathan Newton—The Washington Post/Getty Images by [Thomas Wolf](https://time.com/author/thomas-wolf/) ## Thomas Wolf Jun 21, 2017 10:45 PM UTC The U.S. [Supreme Court](http://time.com/4820397/gerrymander-scotus-origins-word/) has agreed to hear argument this fall in a potentially landmark partisan-[gerrymandering](http://time.com/4820397/gerrymander-scotus-origins-word/) case from Wisconsin. This will give the Justices an opportunity to weigh in on an important question that they’ve never clearly answered: Whether there are any constitutional limits on politicians’ ability to draw electoral maps to give their party a leg up. How the Court decides will go a long way to determining whether you choose your representatives — or the other way around — and whether you’ll be able to hold them accountable when they put party agendas over your interests. The Wisconsin case — known as [_Gill v. Whitford_ ](https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/whitford-v-gill)— is a great opportunity for the Justices to (attempt to) answer this question because it involves an especially extreme and troubling example of [gerrymandering](http://time.com/collection-post/4527291/2016-election-gerrymandering/). In 2010, Wisconsin voters elected a Republican governor and Republican majorities to both statehouses, giving the GOP total control over the state’s redistricting process for the first time in 40 years. The party’s leaders seized the opportunity. They hired a private law firm to supervise aides and consultants who worked away in a secret “map room” Democrats were shut out of the process, and even rank-and-file Republicans were shown only information relating to their own districts. Leadership rushed the approval process for the final plan, which was engineered to ensure Republicans would get a 54-seat majority even if they only garnered 48% of the statewide vote. The map performed even more reliably than expected. In 2012, Republicans won 60 of the 99 seats in the Wisconsin Assembly despite winning only 48.6% of the two-party state-wide vote; in 2014, they won 63 seats with only 52% of the state-wide vote. These results are way off from what we’d expect given the history of Wisconsin’s elections. And using this extremely unusual majority, Republicans in the legislature went on to pass a raft of controversial legislation, including (on party lines) a law eliminating [investigations](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-scott-walker-john-doe-investigation-bill-20151023-story.html) into political misconduct that had targeted associates of [Scott Walker](http://time.com/4680161/cpac-scott-walker-protests/), the state’s Republican governor. Parties using super-majorities to pursue extreme agendas is unfortunate and wrong, but not hard to explain. After all, if legislators think their majorities are safe regardless of how you vote, why wouldn’t they think they have leeway to push the envelope? (A similar dynamic seems to be at work in Congress right now, where the wildly unpopular health care bill passed the House even with twenty Republicans defecting.) In 2015, a group of Wisconsin voters sued to force the legislature to draw a less biased and more representative map. This was, in many ways, a gamble: no plaintiffs had taken a partisan-gerrymandering case to trial and won in more than three decades. But the plaintiffs broke that streak. (Plaintiffs in [racial gerrymandering](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-congressional-districts.html?%5Fr=0) cases — which ask courts to determine whether mapmakers relied too heavily on race when drawing district lines — have historically had more success, including a major victory in North Carolina in May.) The trial court ruled that the assembly map was “an aggressive partisan gerrymander” that unconstitutionally guaranteed a Republican majority in the state assembly “in any likely electoral scenario,” violating both the Fourteenth Amendment’s [Equal Protection Clause](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal%5Fprotection) (which, among other things, requires that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections) and the First Amendment. In making their case to the court, the challengers pointed to strong evidence that the bias in the Wisconsin map wasn’t accidental, including documents showing how the mapmakers used advanced statistics to figure out how each district would vote and how they developed a string of maps that became increasingly biased in favor of Republicans with each iteration. The goal of the map, as one key document said, was to “determine who’s here 10 years from now.” The plaintiffs also relied on the results of the “efficiency gap,” a mathematical test that can flag maps that have a level of bias so high that it’s statistically unlikely that it’s random. Wisconsin argued that it was impossible to draw a less biased map because Democrats were clustered together while Republicans were spread around the state. The trial court found, however, that any clustering — to the extent it existed — couldn’t account for the map’s severe and durable levels of bias. If the Supreme Court agrees that Wisconsin’s gerrymander is unconstitutional, you could see substantial changes to redistricting. The ruling would open the door to challenges targeting other maps that have the same kind of extreme, lasting bias favoring one party that’s been seen in Wisconsin. A recent [report by the Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/extreme-maps) shows there are roughly six congressional maps and nine or so state legislative maps like that right now. Challenges are already pending in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. More importantly, a win for the plaintiffs will change the rules of the game for the next round of redistricting in 2021\. If legislators can no longer get a pass for drawing maps to maximize their party’s advantage, they’re less likely to try to do so. Changes in how legislators draw maps would likely have a major impact on how Congress and state legislatures look and act. For example, the same Brennan Center report shows that 16 to 17 Republican seats in the current House of Representatives are due to extremely [biased maps](https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Extreme%20Maps%205.16%5F0.pdf). That’s a majority of the 24 seats Democrats would need to win to take back control of the House. With a different mix of legislators on the Hill, Congress’ legislative priorities could change. This all means that you could see the return of legislatures that more accurately mirror the diverse communities they represent, and legislators that are more responsive to your concerns. When politicians can’t pick their voters and retreat to their safe seats, voters are back in charge. If, meanwhile, the Court rules in a way that gives partisan gerrymandering a greenlight, the battle against partisan abuses likely would shift from the courts to voters. In several states — including Michigan and Ohio — reformers are putting together ballot initiatives to turn redistricting over to independent commissions. But this solution isn’t available in every state, only underscoring the importance of the Court stepping in this fall to provide some new ground rules. Those rules will set the tone for American politics and elections for a generation and determine whether voters, rather than politicians, run our governments. It doesn’t get much more fundamental than that. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/"},"headline":"How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election","datePublished":"2017-06-21T22:45:15.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T07:54:15.177Z","description":"And all elections that follow","url":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/","keywords":["politics"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1f4d7d887227207c/6988d2b9ab6d772b586aeab1/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-wisconsin-scott-walker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Thomas Wolf","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/thomas-wolf/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1f4d7d887227207c/6988d2b9ab6d772b586aeab1/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-wisconsin-scott-walker.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Supreme Court gerrymandering case","caption":"Supreme Court gerrymandering case","creditText":"Jonathan Newton—The Washington Post/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/","name":"How This Supreme Court Case Will Affect the Next Election"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Supreme Court Family Photo","description":"Footage of the Supreme Court group photo, featuring new addition Neil Gorsuch.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/bdKvieP2/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2017-06-01T15:36:51.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/bdKvieP2.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/","duration":"PT59S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/4826980/gerrymandering-gill-whitford-partisan/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```