Abstract
Challenges to gerrymandering by state legislatures raise questions of whether the Constitution mandates equal representation of all voters, or whether partisan sorting into geographic enclaves is a reality the Constitution does not prohibit, even when it results in unequal representation. Extreme partisan gerrymandering seems to contradict the concept of “one person one vote,” but the greater controversy is about how the Court can know if representation is unequal enough to trigger a constitutional violation. Do we have a measurable standard or is this a political question the Court cannot decide on a reasonable basis? Gill v. Whitford illustrates the deep divisions on the Court over trust in social science expertise and the ability of the Court to engage in the debate over gerrymandering.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Anthony J. McGann, Charles Anthony Smith, Michael Latner, and Alex Keena, Gerrymandering in America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
- 2.
Baker v. Carr (1962); Reynolds v. Sims (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders (1964).
- 3.
See McGann et al. (2016).
- 4.
It is important to emphasize that partisan gerrymandering is not an inherently Republican or Democratic problem, and both parties draw partisan gerrymanders when they have the opportunity to do so. Currently, partisan gerrymandering benefits the Republican Party more so than the Democratic Party. However, this is largely because the Republicans won unified control of state government in several states in the 2010 elections.
- 5.
Whitford v. Gill, No. 15-cv-421-bbc, 2016 WL 6837229 (W.D. Wis. 21 November 2016), page 31.
- 6.
Ibid., page 56.
- 7.
Ibid., pages 64, 70.
- 8.
Ibid., page 85.
- 9.
Ibid., pages 91, 103.
- 10.
Shapiro v. McManus (Shapiro II), 203 F. Supp. 3d 579 (D. Md. 2016), page 597.
- 11.
Benisek v. Lamone , 266 F. Supp. 3d 799—Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2017, page 802.
- 12.
A per curiam (“by the Court”) opinion is an unsigned decision written for the Court as a whole by an unidentified Justice and without individual votes.
- 13.
Gill v. Whitford decision, page 21.
- 14.
Ibid., page 20.
- 15.
Gill v. Whitford Kagan concurrence, pages 4, 7.
- 16.
Gill v. Whitford Kagan concurrence, page 9.
- 17.
For example, see Michael Latner, “Sociological Gobbledygook or Scientific Standard? Why Judging Gerrymandering Is Hard,” Union of Concerned Scientists Blog, 4 October 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keena, A., Latner, M., McGann, A.J., Smith, C.A. (2019). Gill v. Whitford on Partisan Gerrymandering. In: Klein, D., Marietta, M. (eds) SCOTUS 2018. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11255-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11254-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11255-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)