Davis v. Bandemer

Background

Indiana Democrats sued state officials after the 1981 legislative redistricting, saying the new House and Senate maps and the mix of single- and multimember districts were drawn to disadvantage Democrats. Elections held under the 1981 plan in 1982 showed Democrats winning a majority of votes statewide in many contests but winning fewer seats than their statewide vote share suggested, and the three-judge District Court ruled the plan unconstitutional and ordered a new map.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court first held that claims of partisan political gerrymandering may be decided by federal judges (they are justiciable). The Court then explained that to win on such a claim plaintiffs must prove both an intent to discriminate against an identifiable political group and a substantial, consistent discriminatory effect on that group’s ability to influence legislative elections. The Court found the District Court had assumed too low a standard based mainly on one election’s disproportional results and therefore reversed the judgment, while not rejecting the District Court’s finding of intent.

Real world impact

The ruling means courts can hear partisan gerrymandering lawsuits but sets a higher bar: challengers must show a durable pattern of vote dilution, not just one election’s mismatch between votes and seats. State legislatures keep more breathing room to draw maps that meet population rules, but heavily manipulated maps can still be challenged if serious long-term effects are shown.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices split: one concurrence would treat such claims as nonjusticiable, another would uphold the lower court and apply a multi-factor fairness test, showing disagreement over standards and remedies.