Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Davis v. Bandemer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionLegislative RedistrictingPolitical GerrymanderingEqual Protection Clausepolitical gerrymanderingjusticiabilitypolitical question

Facts

After the 1980 census, Indiana's Republican-controlled legislature and Republican Governor enacted a new state legislative reapportionment plan for the House and Senate. Indiana Democrats alleged that the district lines and use of multimember House districts were intentionally designed to disadvantage Democratic voters statewide in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In the 1982 elections held under the plan, Democratic House candidates won 51.9% of the statewide vote but only 43 of 100 House seats, while Democratic Senate candidates won 53.1% of the statewide vote and 13 of 25 seats contested. The District Court relied on those results, along with district shapes and other features, to find intentional discrimination and unconstitutional vote dilution.

Issue

Whether a claim that a state legislative reapportionment plan is a partisan political gerrymander presents a justiciable Equal Protection controversy. If so, whether Indiana Democrats proved that the 1981 reapportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes.

Rule

Political gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. To establish an equal protection violation in this context, plaintiffs must prove both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect; mere lack of proportional representation or disproportionate results in a single election is not enough. Unconstitutional discrimination occurs only when the electoral system is arranged to consistently degrade a voter's or group's influence on the political process as a whole, supported by evidence of continued frustration of majority will or effective denial to a minority of a fair chance to influence the political process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After the census, the Franklin legislature enacted a new state-house map in Columbus. The Liberty Party sued in federal court, alleging the map was drawn to weaken Liberty voters statewide and that the claim is nonjusticiable because districting is inherently political.

How should the court rule on the justiciability issue?

Explanation. The majority held that political gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. The fact that districting is political does not itself create a political question bar. Courts may adjudicate whether state action is consistent with equal protection, even though plaintiffs still must satisfy a demanding merits standard.