Facts of the Case
A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge.
Questions
Did Indiana's 1981 state apportionment violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
No. The Court held that while the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the Democrats, that effect was not "sufficiently adverse" to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The mere lack of proportional representation did not unconstitutionally diminish the Democrats' electoral power. The Court also ruled that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases.
Why Proportional Representation Will Not Stem Redistricting Litigation But Will Undermine Normative Representative Values
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Partisan Gerrymandering and Party Rights: Why Gill v. Whitford Undermines All Future Partisan-Gerrymandering Claims
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gill v. Whitford...
Docket Watch: League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined...
Gill v. Whitford - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast featuring David Casazza
On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case...
The Limits of Political Redistricting: Gill v. Whitford
Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself....
