Vieth v. Jubelirer

Vieth v. Jubelirer
Docket number: 02-1580
Term: 2004
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Important dates
Argument: December 10, 2003 Decided: April 28, 2004
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist • Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Anthony Kennedy • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia • David Souter • John Paul Stevens • Clarence Thomas

Vieth v. Jubelirer was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2004. The case was brought by a group of Pennsylvania Democrats who alleged that the state legislature, controlled by Republicans at the time of the 2000 redistricting cycle, had developed a congressional district map that constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. On April 28, 2004, the court issued a split decision with no majority opinion, declining to intervene in the case. Consequently, the case established no precedent regarding claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Pennsylvania's congressional redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote provision of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs also claimed that the plan represented an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A federal district court ruled that the plan did violate the one-person, one-vote principle, but it dismissed the partisan gerrymandering claims.

The issue: "Can voters affiliated with a political party sue to block implementation of a Congressional redistricting plan by claimed that it was manipulated for purely political reasons?"

The outcome: The court issued a split decision with no majority opinion. Consequently, the district court's ruling stood, and no precedent was established regarding claims of partisan gerrymandering.

Background

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania

Redistricting process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Pennsylvania, the statutory authority to draw congressional district boundaries is vested with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. These lines are subject to gubernatorial veto.

State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission. Established in 1968, the commission comprises five members:

1. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
2. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
3. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
4. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
5. The first four commissioners appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission's chair. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court must appoint a commission chair.

The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Further, state legislative districts should "respect county, city, incorporated town, borough, township and ward boundaries." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.

Case history

Following the 2000 United States Census, Pennsylvania lost two seats in the United States House of Representatives as a result of reapportionment. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and held the governorship. A redistricting plan, accounting for the reduction in the size of the state's congressional delegation, was signed into law on January 7, 2002. This plan was struck down by a federal district court on April 8, 2002, on equal population grounds. A new congressional redistricting plan was signed into law on April 18, 2002. State Democrats filed suit in federal court, alleging that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote provision of Article I, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Democrats also claimed that the redistricting plan represented an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A district court dismissed Democrats' claims of partisan gerrymandering, but it struck down the plan for violating the one-person, one-vote principle. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the following questions were presented:

“

Can voters affiliated with a political party sue to block implementation of a Congressional redistricting plan by claiming that it was manipulated for purely political reasons? Does a state violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment when it disregards neutral redistricting principles (such as trying to avoid splitting municipalities into different Congressional districts) in order to achieve an advantage for one political party? Does a state exceed its power under Article I of the Constitution when it draws Congressional districts to ensure that a minority party will consistently win a super-majority of the state's Congressional seats?

”

Decision

On April 28, 2004, the court issued a split decision with no majority opinion, declining to intervene in the case. The plurality opinion was penned by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. Referring to Davis v. Bandemer, a 1986 decision in which the high court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims can be tried in court under the Equal Protection Clause, Scalia wrote the following in the court's plurality opinion:

“	We conclude that neither Article I, §2, nor the Equal Protection Clause, nor (what appellants only fleetingly invoke) Article I, §4, provides a judicially enforceable limit on the political considerations that the States and Congress may take into account when districting. ... Eighteen years of essentially pointless litigation have persuaded us that Bandemer is incapable of principled application. We would therefore overrule that case, and decline to adjudicate these political gerrymandering claims.	”
—Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion that, according to Oyez, argued the court "should rule narrowly in this case that no appropriate judicial solution could be found, but not give up on finding one eventually." Associate Justice David Souter, joined by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, penned a dissenting opinion supporting the court's earlier ruling in Davis v. Bandemer that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause (Souter's opinion also proposed a new test for proving claims of illegal partisan gerrymandering). Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens penned separate dissents, both asserting the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims.

See also

• Redistricting in Pennsylvania
• Gill v. Whitford
• Gerrymandering

External links

• Supreme Court of the United States, "Vieth v. Jubelirer: Opinion of Scalia, J." April 28, 2004