1 - Goals and Trade-Offs

Summary

In 1986 the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether political gerrymanders – redistricting plans intended to electorally disadvantage one particular political party – were capable of being, and should be, resolved by the courts. The case in question, Davis v. Bandemer, centered on an allegation by Indiana Democrats that Indiana's 1981 reapportionment plan was drawn by Republicans in order to dilute the Democratic vote and thus violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that while an equal protection violation could not be conclusively shown by the appellants in the particular redistricting plan under consideration, such political gerrymandering cases were properly justiciable (or capable of being resolved by the courts) under the Equal Protection Clause. A majority of the Court could not, however, agree on any specific standard for assessing future political gerrymandering claims.

In 2004 the Court revisited the question of political gerrymanders in the case Vieth v. Jubelirer in which Pennsylvania Democrats argued that a political gerrymander had occurred in redrawing Pennsylvania's legislative districts after the 2000 census. However, in this case, a plurality of the Court reversed itself on the Bandemer decision and argued that claims of political gerrymanders were not capable of being decided by a court. Interestingly, the court unanimously agreed that severe political gerrymanders are incompatible with democratic principles.