Cover image of Gill v. Whitford

Gill v. Whitford Podcasts

Read more

7 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Gill v. Whitford. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Gill v. Whitford, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

7 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Gill v. Whitford. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Gill v. Whitford, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

16-1161 - Gill v. Whitford - Opinion Announcement - June 18, 2018

Play
Read more
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, but the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked judicial standing.
Nov 16 2018 ·
Episode artwork

Gill v. Whitford - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Gill v. Whitford, a case considering claims of partisan gerrymandering.
In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, pursuant to the state constitution’s requirement that the legislature must redraw the boundaries of its districts following each census, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
By a vote of 9-0, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the plaintiffs--Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury--had failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined except as to Part III. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch.
To discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn.
Jul 19 2018 · 18mins
Episode artwork

Gill v. Whitford - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
Oct 20 2017 · 14mins
Episode artwork

The Limits of Political Redistricting: Gill v. Whitford

Play
Read more
Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?
Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC
Oct 10 2017 · 59mins
Episode artwork

SCOTUS Gill v. Whitford, Case No. 16-1161

Play
Read more
Election Law: Are partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable? - Argued: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 EST
Oct 06 2017 ·
Episode artwork

'BradCast' 10/4/2017 (Guest: David Daley of FairVote.org on 'Gill v. Whitford')

Play
Read more
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Oct 05 2017 · 59mins
Episode artwork

Gill v. Whitford (2017)

Play
Read more

Argued 10/3/2017.

Description from Oyez.org:

"A case in which the Court will decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, and whether the district court erred in striking down Wisconsin’s redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander."

Oct 03 2017 ·