Whitford v. Clark County is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of gerrymandering. The case was brought by a group of Wisconsin voters who argued that the state’s redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it was designed to favor one political party over another. The Supreme Court held that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the redistricting plan was an example of unconstitutional gerrymandering because it was designed to give one political party an advantage over another. The Court held that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional because it was not based on any rational basis and was instead designed to give one political party an unfair advantage. The Court also held that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against certain voters based on their political beliefs. The Supreme Court’s decision in Whitford v. Clark County was a landmark ruling that established the legal standard for determining when a redistricting plan is unconstitutional. The Court’s decision established that a redistricting plan must be based on a rational basis and must not be designed to give one political party an unfair advantage. The Court’s decision also established that redistricting plans must not discriminate against certain voters based on their political beliefs.

In Whitford v. Clark County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county board of supervisors had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by creating an electoral districting plan that favored one political party over another. The majority opinion held that there was no violation because the plaintiffs did not prove their case with sufficient evidence. Justice Field, however, dissented from this decision and argued that it should have been up to the county board of supervisors to demonstrate why they created such a partisan-favored districting plan in order for them to be found innocent of any wrongdoing under equal protection laws. He further noted that if such proof could not be provided then it would seem as though they were attempting to create an unfair advantage for one particular political party which is unconstitutional according to established law.