Vieth v. Jubelirer

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Vieth v. Jubelirer
ArgueDate=December 10
ArgueYear=2003
DecideDate=April 28
DecideYear=2004
FullName=Richard Vieth, et al. v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
USVol=541
USPage=267
Citation=541 U.S. 267; 124 S.Ct. 1769; 158 L.Ed.2d 546
Prior=On appeal from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 188 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.Pa.2002) (Vieth I); Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 195 F.Supp.2d 672 (M.D.Pa.2002) (Vieth II)
Holding=Gerrymandering claims present a non-justiciable question, as there are no judicially manageable standards available to resolve gerrymandering questions.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Plurality=Scalia
JoinPlurality=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas
Concurrence=Kennedy
Dissent=Stevens
Dissent2=Souter
JoinDissent2=Ginsburg
Dissent3=Breyer

"Vieth v. Jubelirer", 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case. The ruling was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring, upheld the ruling of the District Court that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional.

The plaintiff-appellants in this case were Norma Jean and Richard Vieth and Susan Furey, registered Democrats in Pennsylvania. They contended that the Republican controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly had unconstitutionally gerrymandered the districts for the election of congressional representatives. This, the plaintiffs claimed, denied Democrats full participation in the political process by violating the one-person one-vote requirement of the Constitution Article I, and denied Democrats equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The 2000 census determined that Pennsylvania was entitled to 19 Representatives in Congress (2 fewer than the previous delegation) and congressional election districts therefore had to be redrawn consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings. At the time the election districts were being drawn the Republican Party controlled both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature, and the Governor's office. According to the plaintiffs, prominent Republicans in the national party put pressure on the Assembly to redistrict along partisan lines "as a punitive measure against Democrats for having enacted pro-Democrat redistricting plans elsewhere" and to benefit the party in congressional elections in Pennsylvania.

The plurality opinion determined that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable because there was no discernible and manageable standard for "adjudicating political gerrymandering claims." The court did not explicitly overturn its ruling in Davis v. Bandemer: five justices were unwilling to determine that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable.

Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred with the ruling of the court to uphold the District Courts decision, but maintained that cases of political gerrymandering were justiciable in accordance with the majority decision (6-3) in Davis V. Bandemer. He did not, however, foreclose the possibility that judicially manageable standards for gerrymandering could be developed.

Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David Souter, and Justice Stephen Breyer each provided dissenting opinions.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 541

References

Vieth V. Jubelirer 541 U.S. 267

On this website on pg 267, but the 367th page of 1141 pages:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/541bv.pdf