Gill v. Whitford

rdf:langString Gill v. Whitford

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al.

rdf:langString Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan; Thomas, Gorsuch

rdf:langString ____

rdf:langString Gill v. Whitford,

rdf:langString Walter

rdf:langString Guy-Uriel E.

rdf:langString Luis E.

rdf:langString Beverly R. Gill, et al. v. William Whitford, et al.

rdf:langString Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate personal harm, on the basis argued, as a result of alleged partisan gerrymandering and therefore lacked standing. Remanded to District Court for further proceedings.

rdf:langString Charles

rdf:langString Olson

rdf:langString Fuentes-Rohwer

rdf:langString Gill v. Whitford

rdf:langString Roberts

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString The Ghost Ship of Gerrymandering Law

rdf:langString The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Comment: Judicial Intervention as Judicial Restraint

rdf:langString Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question. Gill arose following the 2011 redistricting plan for the State of Wisconsin created by Republican legislators to maximize the likelihood that the Republicans would be able to secure additional seats in the State legislature over the next few election cycles. The plan was challenged by Democratic citizens, claiming the redistricting plan caused their votes to be "wasted". The case was filed in 2015, and by 2016, the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the Democrats, based on the evaluation of the efficiency gap measure developed for this case, and ordered Wisconsin to redo its districts by 2017. The State appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2017. During the Court's deliberations, it also accepted to hear the merits of another partisan gerrymandering case, Benisek v. Lamone, related to the 2011 redistricting of Maryland's 6th congressional district, for which it heard oral arguments in March 2018. While the majority of political scientists agree that Wisconsin's map was heavily biased, it was expected that the case would center on whether the efficiency gap measures and other metrics provided by political scientists meet the criteria that Justice Anthony Kennedy set forth in his concurring opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), a previous Supreme Court case dealing with partisan gerrymandering. Ruling on June 18, 2018, the Court remanded the case to lower courts, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated standing for the case in demonstration of harm, though the Justices were split on to what degree the plaintiffs must show "concrete and particularized injuries".

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Kagan

rdf:langString Gorsuch

rdf:langString Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor