7 articles
Justin Levitt is a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; he runs the website “All About Redistricting.” Partisan gerrymandering is back. There are two cases before the Supreme Court this term: a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland and a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina.
Tyler Green is the solicitor general of Utah. My last contribution to a SCOTUSblog symposium on political gerrymandering used homemade bad theater to depict how a Supreme Court decision setting a standard for political-gerrymandering claims would change life for state legislators and their attorneys.
Kaylan L. Phillips serves as litigation counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has struggled to articulate a standard for evaluating partisan-gerrymandering claims.
Guy-Uriel E. Charles is the Bennett Boskey Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law at Duke Law School. Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer is Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow at Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law.
Daniel Tokaji is Associate Dean for Faculty and Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law. No one said this would be easy.
Derek Muller is an associate professor of law at the Pepperdine University School of Law. “In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people’s representatives.” So wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in his dissenting opinion in Baker v. Carr in 1962.
Every 10 years, the federal government conducts a census. The states then use the data from the census to draw new maps for their state legislatures and federal congressional districts. The maps often take politics into account – for example, to protect incumbents.