The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, October 7, 1985
Decision: Monday, June 30, 1986
Issues: Civil Rights, Reapportionment

Advocates

Theodore R. Boehm (Argued the cause for the appellees)
William M. Evans (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge.

Question

Did Indiana's 1981 state apportionment violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Court held that while the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the Democrats, that effect was not "sufficiently adverse" to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The mere lack of proportional representation did not unconstitutionally diminish the Democrats' electoral power. The Court also ruled that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Davis, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Wrote a dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Burger
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Wrote the majority opinion
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a regular concurrence
Powell
Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, joined Powell's concurrence
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
O'Connor
Full Opinion by Justice Byron R. White

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1244/>
(last visited ).