The U.S. Supreme Court case George Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Barney Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore of Ohio House of Representatives, et al., 1992 revolved around the issue of redistricting in the state of Ohio following the 1990 census results which led to a loss and subsequent redistribution of two congressional seats for the state. The Republican governor's plan was challenged by Democratic legislators who argued that it violated Article I Section 2 clause (the "one person one vote" principle) as well as equal protection principles under Fourteenth Amendment due to its partisan gerrymandering nature favoring Republicans disproportionately over Democrats in terms of representation at both federal and state levels. However, on appeal from lower courts' rulings against him, Governor Voinovich won with a majority decision by Supreme Court justices stating that political gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible or manageable standards existed for adjudicating such claims; thus affirming his proposed redistricting plan.

In the dissenting opinion for Voinovich v. Quilter, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Ohio's redistricting plan was incorrect because it relied on an interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that he believed was flawed. He contended that this section only prohibited practices which denied minority voters equal access to electoral processes, not those which merely affected their ability to elect representatives of choice. Furthermore, he asserted that even if Section 2 did cover such cases, there wasn't enough evidence presented in this case proving dilution of minority voting strength or denial of fair representation opportunity due to racial discrimination. He also criticized the majority’s use and definition of “political cohesion” as a measure for determining vote dilution under Section 2 as being too vague and subjective.