Judging Partisan Gerrymanders under the Elections Clause

By Greene, Jamal | The Yale Law Journal, March 2005 | Go to article overview

Judging Partisan Gerrymanders under the Elections Clause


Greene, Jamal, The Yale Law Journal


INTRODUCTION

I.   THE MEANING OF THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE
     A. The Elections Clause in the Supreme Court
     B. The Philadelphia Convention and Its Aftermath
     C. State Ratifying Conventions

II.  THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE AND PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING
     A. English Practice
     B. Early Colonial and State Practice

III. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING UNDER
     THE ELECTIONS CLAUSE
     A. Ensuring a Republican Form of Government
     B. Judicial Enforcement of the Republican Guarantee
     C. Congressional Enforcement of the Republican Guarantee

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Twice in the last two decades, the Supreme Court has come within two votes of declaring partisan gerrymandering--the manipulation of district lines for partisan ends (1)--a nonjusticiable political question. Last Term, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, Pennsylvania Democrats challenged an alleged Republican gerrymander of the state's congressional districts. (2) Four members of the Court thought the question nonjusticiable, (3) and one, Justice Kennedy, thought it justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause but nonetheless rejected the plaintiff's claims. (4) Eighteen years earlier, in Davis v. Bandemer, a three-Justice plurality had held that a political group complaining of partisan gerrymandering--the Democratic or the Republican Party, as the case may be--could proceed with its equal protection claim, but only upon a showing that it had been "denied its chance to effectively influence the political process." (5)

Such a test being, in effect, impossible for a major political party to meet, Bandemer's promise that federal courts would be open to partisan gerrymandering claims has proven an empty one. Indeed, despite widespread belief that partisan gerrymandering impermissibly calcifies the democratic process, (6) complaints alleging it rarely survive motions to dismiss. (7) Thus, even while conceding that severe partisan gerrymanders are inconsistent with democratic principles, (8) Justice Scalia wrote for the Vieth plurality that "no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims have emerged." (9)

But a curiosity persists. While the Vieth plurality may be correct that the standard for judging partisan gerrymandering claims under the Equal Protection Clause has been filled with peril, the Court's own jurisprudence potentially supports analysis of such claims under a very different constitutional provision. The central difficulty of using the Equal Protection Clause in partisan gerrymandering cases is that equal protection analysis relies on evaluating the permissibility of a given classification; unlike racial classifications, the Court does not generally view political classifications as per se impermissible. (10) In Cook v. Gralike, (11) however, seven members of the Court, Justice Scalia among them, backed the proposition that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Congress, (12) limits that power to so-called "'procedural regulations.'" (13) It does not grant states the authority to "attempt[] to 'dictate electoral outcomes.'" (14)

If this broad language is to be taken seriously, its reach is monumental. The Gralike Court had to decide whether the Missouri legislature could designate on the ballot whether congressional candidates supported a federal term limits amendment. Whether these actions represent "attempts to 'dictate electoral outcomes'" seems a much closer question than whether partisan gerrymandering does so. Even ardent defenders of the practice acknowledge that in purposefully manipulating district lines, state legislators hope to dictate electoral outcomes at least as much as proponents of pejorative ballot labels do. (15) Proponents and opponents of gerrymandering disagree only on the propriety of doing so. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Judging Partisan Gerrymanders under the Elections Clause
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.