The Supreme Court essentially approved the practice in a recent ruling. Will Democrats still make good on promises to take partisanship out of redistricting?
The new swing vote on the court is the conservative chief justice; Trump's appointees are going different directions; and Justice Ginsburg appears to be handing off the liberal torch to Justice Kagan.
The court once again appeared divided on whether redistricting could be done on the basis of politics. The newest justice seemed to be at least open to considering it as a problem.
A pivotal retirement and a new conservative majority could give the state legislatures a green light for even more partisanship when it comes to drawing political boundaries.
The court on Monday, in twin partisan gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin and Maryland, said either that challengers didn't have standing or didn't weigh in on the merits of the case.
The federal judges gave lawmakers until Jan. 29 to show them a new map. The deadline is important because candidates for the November congressional elections begin filing for the primaries on Feb. 12.
Wisconsin Republicans lost the 2012 election overall but won 60 percent of the legislative seats. They did it through extreme partisan gerrymandering. The court will weigh how far is too far.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas agreed on cases spanning several hotly contested issues, including same-sex marriage, gun rights, immigration and taxpayer aid to religious schools.
