Lance v. Coffman
United States Supreme Court
549 U.S. 437 (2007)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The Colorado Constitution allows for only one redistricting after each census. Colorado’s legislators were unable to agree on redrawn districts following the 2000 Census, and the districts were redrawn by a state court in Colorado. In 2003, the legislators passed a new redistricting plan. The Colorado Attorney General filed an original action in the Colorado Supreme Court to stop the new plan from going into effect, arguing that the judicial redistricting plan was valid and was the only plan permitted for that census cycle. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed and enjoined the new legislative plan from going into effect. The court also considered the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which required that the state legislature determine the manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, but determined that the injunction did not violate the clause. Later, four Colorado citizens (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision violated the Elections Clause. The trial court determined that the Colorado citizens had standing but that the case was barred by issue preclusion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
