About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (October 2, 2017)

handle is hein.crs/govcizr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Reeac .ev . - Supreme Court To Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Case On October 3 October 2, 2017 On October 3, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gill v. Wfhitford, a case that could significantly impact how congressional and state legislative redistricting maps are drawn. In Gill, the Court has been asked to establish a standard for determining whether a redistricting map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. The Court has defined partisan gerrymandering as the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power. A decision in this case is anticipated by June 2018. Although the Supreme Court has invalidated redistricting maps as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the Court has not overturned a map because of partisan gerrymandering. In prior cases presenting a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, the Court has left open the possibility that such claims could be judicially reviewable, but has been unable to determine a manageable standard for adjudicating such claims. For example, in a 2004 decision, Vieth vi dubelirer, a plurality of four Justices determined that a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering presented a nonjusticiable political question, while four other Justices concluded that such claims are justiciable, but could not agree upon a standard for courts to use in assessing such claims. The deciding vote in Vieth, Justice Kennedy, concluded that the claims presented in Vieth were not justiciable because neither comprehensive, neutral principles for drawing electoral boundaries, nor rules limiting judicial intervention, exist. Nonetheless, he would not foreclose all possibility of judicial relief if some limited and precise rationale were found to correct an established violation of the Constitution in some redistricting cases. Gill is an appeal from a federal district court panel decision holding, by a 2-to-I vote, that a Wisconsin state legislative redistricting map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. (A provision of federal law provides for direct appeals to the Supreme Court in cases involving constitutional challenges to redistricting maps.) According to the district court, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the guarantees of free speech and association under the First Amendment prohibit a redistricting map that is drawn with the purpose, and has the effect, of placing a severe impediment on the effectiveness of a citizen's vote that is based on political affiliation and cannot be justified on other, legitimate legislative grounds. Although the redistricting map complied with traditional redistricting principles-which include contiguity and compactness-based on the record in the case, the court held that the map nonetheless had a purpose and effect of entrenching one party in its control of the legislature Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10006 CRS }NStGHT Prepaed for Membeivs and Co,'qrltl :s fConqgress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most