Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Docket No.: 02-1580
Argued: December 10, 2003
Decided: April 28, 2004

Topics:

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives, Judicial Power, Standing to Sue, Article I, Bankruptcy, Bill of Rights, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Eleventh Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Reapportionment, Title VII, Voting Rights Act of 1965, antitrust, judicial review, preliminary injunction, racial discrimination, separation of powers, stare decisis, waiver of a limitations defense

PartyNames: Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey, Appellants v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
Petitioner: Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey, Appellants
Respondent: Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.

Court Below: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Citation: DC Middle District of Pennsylvania, 241 F. Supp. 2d 478. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the District Court erred in effectively concluding that votersaffiliated with a major political party may never state a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymanderin g, thereby nullifying this Court'sdecision in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).
Supreme Court Docket

Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey, Appellants
v.
Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
541 U.S. 267 (2004)
Question Presented:

1. Whether the District Court erred in effectively concluding that votersaffiliated with a major political party may never state a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymanderin g, thereby nullifying this Court'sdecision in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). 2. Whether a State presumptively violat es the Equal Protection Clause when it subordinates all traditional, neutral districting principles to the overarchinggoal of drawing a congressional redistricting map that achieves maximum partisan advantage for members of one political party. 3. Whether a State exceeds its delega ted power under Article I of the Constitution when it draws congressional-district boundaries to ensure thatcandidates from one political party w ill consistently capture a supermajority of the State's congressional seats ev en if those candidates win less than half the popular vote statewide. PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED: 6/27/03

Question:

Can voters affiliated with a political party sue to block implementation of a Congressional redistricting plan by claiming that it was manipulated for purely political reasons? Does a state violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment when it disregards neutral redistricting principles (such as trying to avoid splitting municipalities into different Congressional districts) in order to achieve an advantage for one political party? Does a state exceed its power under Article I of the Constitution when it draws Congressional districts to ensure that a minority party will consistently win a super-majority of the state's Congressional seats?

Note:

. . Supp. 2d 478.

Vieth v. Jubelirer
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 10, 2003

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 5 votes for Jubelirer, 4 vote(s) against
Vote: 5-4
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)