On November 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Wittman v Personhuballah, 14-1504, a redistricting case from Virginia. The lower court 2-1 had invalidated Virginia’s U.S. House district boundaries. The issue is whether the plan packed too many African-American voters into one district, thus diminishing their influence in neighboring districts.

This is the fourth redistricting case the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing this term. The others are: (1) Shapiro v McManus, 14-990, which was argued on November 4, 2015; (2) Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940, which will be argued December 8, 2015; (3) Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 14-232, which will be argued December 8, 2015.

The reason the Court hears so many redistricting cases is that a federal law requires that challenges to U.S. House districts must be heard by 3-judge U.S. District Courts. Any appeal from those courts goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court must either then hear the case, or rule summarily that the lower court was correct. Unlike the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court is obliged to express an opinion.

The issue in Shapiro v McManus is whether it is really true that every challenge to a U.S. House redistricting plan needs a three-judge court. In that case, from Maryland, a single U.S. District Court judge determined that the case was not serious and therefore no three-judge court was convened.