From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1986 United States Supreme Court case
Davis v. Bandemer
|
---|
![](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png) |
|
Full case name
| Davis, et al. v. Bandemer, et al.
|
---|
Citations
| 478
U.S.
109
(
more
)
|
---|
|
Prior
| Bandemer v. Davis
, 603
F. Supp.
1479
(
S.D. Ind.
1984); probable jurisdiction noted,
470
U.S.
1083 (1985).
|
---|
|
Claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for judicial review of those claims. 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.
|
|
- Chief Justice
- Warren E. Burger
- Associate Justices
- William J. Brennan Jr.
·
Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
·
Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
·
William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens
·
Sandra Day O'Connor
|
|
Majority
| White (Part II), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
|
---|
Plurality
| White (Parts I, III and IV), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
|
---|
Concurrence
| Burger (in judgment)
|
---|
Concurrence
| O'Connor (in judgment), joined by Burger, Rehnquist
|
---|
Concur/dissent
| Powell, joined by Stevens
|
---|
|
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
|
Abrogated by
|
Rucho v. Common Cause
(2019)
|
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
, 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,
[1]
Democrats in the California house and senate filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan.
[2]
Background
[
edit
]
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."
[3]
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.
[4]
Decision
[
edit
]
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.
[5]
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.
[6]
See also
[
edit
]
References
[
edit
]
- ^
Brief Amicus Curiae of the Republican National Committee in Support of Appellees, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al., Appellees., 1985 (U.S.), 1.
- ^
Brief Amicus Curiae of Assembly of the State of California in Support of Appellants, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al., Appellees., 1985 (U.S.).
- ^
"
Davis v. Bandemer
478 U.S. 109 (1986)"
. Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law
. Retrieved
January 10,
2014
.
- ^
Bandemer v. Davis
,
603 F. Supp. 1479
(
S.D. Ind.
1984).
- ^
Davis v. Bandemer
,
478
U.S.
109
(1986).
- ^
"Davis v. Bandemer"
.
Ballotpedia
. Retrieved
March 5,
2019
.
Further reading
[
edit
]
External links
[
edit
]
|
---|
Equal population
| |
---|
Partisan gerrymandering
| |
---|
Racial gerrymandering
| |
---|
Other
| |
---|