Difference between revisions of "Gill v. Whitford"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In ''Gill v. Whitford'', 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] denied a challenge to redistricting in [[Wisconsin]], based on a lack of [[standing]] by the parties who had not even demonstrated that they lived in one of the challenged districts. | In ''Gill v. Whitford'', 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] denied a challenge to redistricting in [[Wisconsin]], based on a lack of [[standing]] by the parties who had not even demonstrated that they lived in one of the challenged districts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Writing for the Court, Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] stated: | ||
| + | {{cquote|We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. ''Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus'', 575 U. S., at ___, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 191 L. Ed. 2d 314, 329 (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis).}} | ||
| + | ''Gill v. Whitford'', 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1934 (2018) | ||
[[category:Election law]] | [[category:Election law]] | ||
[[category:standing]] | [[category:standing]] | ||
Revision as of 20:35, December 27, 2020
In Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court denied a challenge to redistricting in Wisconsin, based on a lack of standing by the parties who had not even demonstrated that they lived in one of the challenged districts.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated:
| “ | We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U. S., at ___, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 191 L. Ed. 2d 314, 329 (remanding for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering claims on a district-by-district basis). | ” |
Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1934 (2018)