HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Davis v. Bandemer'', 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were
justiciable Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party ...
, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues. Democrats had won 51.9% of the votes, but only 43/100 seats. Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan. The National Republican Committee filed an '' amicus'' brief in support of the Indiana Democrats, Democrats in the California house and senate filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan.


Background

Democrats in the state of Indiana challenged the state's 1981 state apportionment scheme for Indiana General Assembly districts because of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that "the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights." Indiana Democrats used the elections of November 1982 as proof that the new plan violated the 14th amendment due to voter dilution. In both the House and the Senate Democrats won the majority of votes, but failed to have a majority of candidates win. The District Court ruled in favor of the Democrats, throwing out the old plan and calling for the creation of a new one.


Decision

The Supreme Court ruled on two separate issues, first whether gerrymandering claims are justiciable and secondly, if the 1981 Indiana Reapportionment Plan was an infraction on citizen's rights to equal representation which was protected by the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts can determine cases of partisan gerrymandering as worthy of intervention, but they also ruled 7-2 that Indiana's plan was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.


See also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 478 * List of United States Supreme Court cases * Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume *
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court This is a partial chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the Rehnquist Court, the tenure of Chief Justice William Rehnquist from September 26, 1986, through September 3, 2005. The cases are listed chrono ...
* '' Vieth v. Jubelirer'' (2004) * ''
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry ''League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry'', 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refuse ...
'' (2006) * '' Gill v. Whitford'' (2018) * '' Rucho v. Common Cause'' (2019)


References


Further reading

*


External links

* United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court United States Constitution Article Three case law United States electoral redistricting case law United States political question doctrine case law 1986 in United States case law Indiana General Assembly Gerrymandering in the United States {{SCOTUS-stub