Davis v. Bandemer
United States Supreme Court
478 U.S. 109 (1986)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Powell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
