| Davis v. Bandemer | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 7, 1985 Decided June 30, 1986 | |
| Full case name | Davis, et al. v. Bandemer, et al. |
| Citations | 478 U.S. 109 (more) 106 S. Ct. 2797; 92 L. Ed. 2d 85; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 122; 54 U.S.L.W. 4898 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Bandemer v. Davis, 603 F. Supp. 1479 (S.D. Ind. 1984); probable jurisdiction noted, 470 U.S. 1083 (1985). |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White (Part II), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Plurality | White (Parts I, III and IV), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Burger (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in judgment), joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
| Concur/dissent | Powell, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Abrogated by | |
| Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) | |
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,[1] Democrats in the California house and senate filed briefs supporting the Republican redistricting plan.[2]
- ^ Brief Amicus Curiae of the Republican National Committee in Support of Appellees, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al., Appellees., 1985 (U.S.), 1.
- ^ Brief Amicus Curiae of Assembly of the State of California in Support of Appellants, Susan J. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. Irwin C. BANDEMER, et al., Appellees., 1985 (U.S.).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search