Davis v. Bandemer
Case Date: 10/07/1985
Docket No: none
|
A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge. QuestionDid Indiana's 1981 state apportionment violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Argument Davis v. Bandemer - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text Download MP3 Conclusion Decision: 6 votes for Davis, 3 vote(s) against Legal provision: Equal ProtectionNo. The Court held that while the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the Democrats, that effect was not "sufficiently adverse" to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The mere lack of proportional representation did not unconstitutionally diminish the Democrats' electoral power. The Court also ruled that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases. |