Davis v. Bandemer
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Davis_v._Bandemer an entity of type: Thing
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues. Democrats had won 51.9% of the votes, but only 43/100 seats. Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Davis v. Bandemer
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Davis, et al. v. Bandemer, et al.
xsd:integer
21664350
xsd:integer
1073898005
rdf:langString
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Bandemer v. Davis, 603 F. Supp. 1479 ; probable jurisdiction noted, .
xsd:integer
109
xsd:integer
478
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-07
xsd:integer
1985
rdf:langString
Davis v. Bandemer,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-30
xsd:integer
1986
rdf:langString
Davis, et al. v. Bandemer, et al.
rdf:langString
Claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for judicial review of those claims. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues.
rdf:langString
Davis v. Bandemer
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. The decision was later limited with respect to many of the elements directly involving issues of redistricting and political gerrymandering, but was somewhat broadened with respect to less significant ancillary procedural issues. Democrats had won 51.9% of the votes, but only 43/100 seats. Democrats sued on basis of one man, one vote, however, California Democrats supported the Indiana GOP's plan. The National Republican Committee filed an amicus brief in support of the Indiana Democrats, Democrats in the California house and senate filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan.
rdf:langString
O'Connor
rdf:langString
Burger
rdf:langString
Powell
rdf:langString
Burger, Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
rdf:langString
White
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
6275