Term: 2017
Docket: 16-1161
Gill v. Whitford
- Pro
16-1161 GILL V. WHITFORD DECISION BELOW: 218 F.Supp.3d 837 FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS POSTPONED TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS. JURISDICTION NOTED 6/19/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1.Did the district court violate Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis? 2. Did the district court violate Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles? 3. Did the district court violate Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan- gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)? 4. Are Defendants entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed? 5. Are partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-cv-421-bbc
The case of Gill v. Whitford in 2017 was a significant U.S Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of gerrymandering, or the manipulation of electoral boundaries to favor one party over another. The plaintiffs were Democratic voters from Wisconsin who argued that their state's legislative map had been drawn unfairly by Republicans to dilute the power of Democratic votes - an act they claimed violated their First Amendment rights and equal protection under law as per Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court unanimously ruled against them on procedural grounds rather than addressing the substantive issues at hand. It held that individual voters do not have standing to challenge statewide maps for partisan bias; instead, such claims must demonstrate harm in specific districts. Therefore, it sent back this landmark case to lower courts for further proceedings without setting any precedent on whether extreme partisan gerrymandering is constitutional.
In the dissenting opinion for Gill v. Whitford, Justice Kagan argued that partisan gerrymandering is a violation of constitutional rights and undermines democratic principles. She contended that the majority's decision to remand the case back to lower courts due to lack of standing was incorrect because plaintiffs had indeed demonstrated specific and individual harm from redistricting plans. Furthermore, she suggested that such gerrymandering harms not just individuals but also collective political organizations by diluting their influence in elections. Therefore, she believed it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene in extreme cases of partisan gerrymandering as they pose threats both at individual and group levels.
