Davis v. Bandemer

United States Supreme Court
478 U.S. 109 (1986)


Facts

In 1981, the Indiana state legislature, controlled by the Republican Party, adopted a reapportionment plan that provided for state senate and house districts of substantially equal population. Despite the equal population sizes, however, the Indiana Democrats claimed that the plan substantially diluted Democratic voting strength by using a mix of single and multi-member districts, and gerrymandering district lines. In the first elections held under the plan in 1982, the Democrats received 51.9 percent of the total house vote and 53.1 percent of the total senate vote. However, the Democrats won only forty-three of one hundred house seats and only thirteen of twenty-five senate seats in the Indiana legislature. Bandemer (plaintiff) brought suit against Davis (defendant) in federal district court on the ground that the reapportionment plan was unconstitutional. The district court agreed and granted relief, and Davis appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is for members only. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Issue

The issue section is for members only and includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Dissent (Powell, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Here's why 10,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 7,515 briefs - keyed to 85 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now