Statements (183)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 26, 2019
Partisan gerrymandering is a political question |
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Criticized for undermining democratic accountability
Examined through the lens of political science Potentially emboldens partisan redistricting efforts. Relevant to ongoing discussions about electoral fairness |
| gptkbp:case_number |
18-422
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Affirmed lower court's dismissal Shifts focus to state courts for gerrymandering claims Federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims Significant for electoral integrity debates |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Influences future Supreme Court cases on redistricting
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 27, 2019 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Elena_Kagan
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer Justices Stephen Breyer Judicial intervention is necessary to protect voters Partisan gerrymandering harms democratic principles The dissent calls for a constitutional amendment to address gerrymandering The dissent emphasizes the need for equitable representation in government The dissent calls for a comprehensive approach to electoral reform The dissent critiques the majority's interpretation of the Constitution The dissent advocates for a more active role of the courts in electoral matters The dissent argues that the ruling undermines the principle of one person, one vote Partisan gerrymandering violates the First Amendment The dissent highlights the implications for future redistricting efforts The dissent stresses the need for accountability in redistricting processes The dissent warns of the erosion of voting rights due to gerrymandering The dissent emphasizes the importance of public trust in electoral processes The dissent highlights the historical context of gerrymandering The dissent critiques the majority's dismissal of voter harm The dissent argues for the importance of judicial oversight in elections The decision sets a dangerous precedent for future elections The dissent emphasizes the need for checks on legislative power in redistricting The dissent argues for the necessity of judicial standards in redistricting cases The dissent advocates for a principled approach to electoral fairness The dissent argues that the majority's decision is a disservice to voters The majority opinion ignores the realities of political power dynamics The dissent critiques the majority's reliance on political questions doctrine The dissent argues that the majority's ruling is a retreat from judicial responsibility The Court's decision leaves voters without recourse The Constitution does not permit extreme partisan bias in districting The dissent argues for the role of the judiciary in protecting electoral integrity The dissent warns against the normalization of extreme partisan practices Partisan gerrymandering undermines democratic principles The dissent argues that the ruling will embolden partisan actors The dissent warns of the consequences of unchecked partisan manipulation The dissent calls for a reevaluation of the role of courts in electoral disputes The dissent calls for a standard to evaluate gerrymandering claims The dissent highlights the role of the judiciary in safeguarding democracy The dissent emphasizes the importance of fair representation The dissent argues that the majority's decision is a threat to democracy Partisan gerrymandering can lead to political polarization The dissent argues that the majority's ruling is historically unprecedented The dissent highlights the importance of protecting electoral rights The dissent emphasizes the need for a fair electoral process The dissent argues for the necessity of judicial oversight in elections The dissent critiques the lack of a clear standard for gerrymandering cases Judicial intervention is necessary to prevent extreme partisan gerrymandering Voters should have a fair opportunity to elect their representatives State courts can address partisan gerrymandering issues Judicial standards for evaluating gerrymandering should be established The dissent argues for the need of a judicial remedy for voters The dissent warns of the consequences of unchecked gerrymandering The dissent argues for a standard to evaluate partisan gerrymandering The decision leaves voters without recourse against unfair maps The dissent stresses the importance of electoral integrity The decision could embolden state legislatures to draw extreme maps The dissent calls for accountability in electoral processes The dissent emphasizes the need for equitable representation in democracy The Constitution does not permit extreme partisan manipulation of electoral districts The dissent calls for a more robust judicial approach to gerrymandering The role of the judiciary is to protect minority rights in elections The dissent highlights the impact on minority voters The dissent argues that the ruling could disenfranchise voters. The dissent argues that the courts have a role in protecting democracy The majority's ruling ignores historical context of gerrymandering The majority's decision undermines democratic principles The dissent warns of the implications for future elections |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 27, 2019
|
| gptkbp:future_prospects |
Potential for increased partisan gerrymandering
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
affects minority voting rights
shapes political discourse influences voter turnout affects campaign strategies affects electoral competitiveness affects political polarization affects state redistricting processes affects the integrity of the electoral process affects the interpretation of electoral fairness affects the public's trust in the electoral system affects the role of political parties in elections encourages state-level reforms influences legislative accountability influences political party strategies influences public perception of the judiciary influences state court rulings on redistricting influences the role of technology in elections raises awareness about electoral reform. raises concerns about democracy raises questions about judicial activism raises questions about voter representation shapes the future of electoral law shapes the future of political representation sparks public debate on gerrymandering influences the relationship between state and federal law influences the balance of power in state legislatures encourages advocacy for independent redistricting commissions shapes future Supreme Court rulings on redistricting |
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Landmark case in electoral law
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Rucho v. Common Cause
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future redistricting cases
election laws in the United States Influences state redistricting processes State legislatures' redistricting practices influenced state redistricting processes State legislatures' redistricting authority |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
Common Cause
David Rucho |
| gptkbp:involves |
gerrymandering
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
588 U. S. 1 (2019)
588 U. S. ___ (2019) 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Limits on judicial review of political questions
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act
gptkb:First_Amendment gptkb:Fourteenth_Amendment gptkb:U._S._Constitution Election law |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Conservative judicial philosophy
Judicial restraint No federal standards for partisan gerrymandering |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Partisan_gerrymandering
gerrymandering First Amendment implications Equal Protection Clause implications Constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Reinforces state control over redistricting
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Various state-level redistricting reforms
|
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_summary |
Judicial standards for partisan gerrymandering are not manageable
|
| gptkbp:material |
Originated from North Carolina redistricting disputes
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive coverage in legal and political media
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
future gerrymandering cases
Future gerrymandering litigation Limits on judicial intervention in redistricting Sets precedent for future gerrymandering cases Limits on federal court intervention in state redistricting limits on judicial intervention in partisan redistricting Limits on federal court intervention in redistricting |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts
gptkb:Justices_Neil_Gorsuch gptkb:Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh gptkb:Justice_Neil_Gorsuch gptkb:Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas Justices Samuel Alito Justices Brett Kavanaugh Political questions should be resolved by the political process |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial decision
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Gill_v._Whitford
gptkb:League_of_Women_Voters_of_Pennsylvania_v._Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania gptkb:Benisek_v._Lamone |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Whitford_v._Gill
gptkb:League_of_Women_Voters_of_Pennsylvania_v._Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania Voting Rights Electoral fairness |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Debate on gerrymandering and democracy
|
| gptkbp:significance |
limits judicial intervention in partisan redistricting
Clarifies the role of courts in electoral districting Clarified judicial limits on political questions major case on electoral fairness |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|