Karcher v. Daggett
Significance, No Rationale For Deviation Found, Feldman Plan Found Flawed, Minority Opinion, Impact
Alan Karcher, Speaker, New Jersey Assembly
Daggett, et al.
Gerrymandering by the controlling Democratic Party of the New Jersey legislature did not violate the U.S. Constitution because it relied on "good faith" criteria for legislative redistricting and protected minority voting rights.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Kenneth J. Guido, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
22 June 1983
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court which found the re-districting plan to be unfairly biased in favor of the outgoing political party (then controlling) the New Jersey Legislature.
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969).
- Giffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973).
- White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (1973).
- Kolender v. Lawson - Significance, Impact
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency - Significance, Related Cases, Further Readings
- Karcher v. Daggett - Further Readings
- Karcher v. Daggett - Significance
- Karcher v. Daggett - No Rationale For Deviation Found
- Karcher v. Daggett - Feldman Plan Found Flawed
- Karcher v. Daggett - Minority Opinion
- Karcher v. Daggett - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias