Davis v. Bandemer - Significance, A Political Question?, An Agreeable Test, Inconsistent Results, Impact, Further Readings
Susan J. Davis, et al.
Irwin C. Bandemer, et al.
That Indiana's 1981 legislative redistricting plan did not unconstitutionally discriminate against Democratic legislators in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William M. Evans
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Theodore R. Boehm
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Byron R. White (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
30 June 1986
Upheld the state of Indiana's legislative redistricting plan, concluding that although the defendant's claim that the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause could be decided by the Court, the plan itself did not discriminate against Democratic legislators.
- Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849).
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996).
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
- Edwards v. Aguillard - Significance, Creationism Act
- Colorado v. Connelly - Significance, Defendant Heard "voice Of God", No Violation Of Due Process Rights Found, Dissenting Justices Not Unified In Opinion
- Davis v. Bandemer - Significance
- Davis v. Bandemer - Further Readings
- Davis v. Bandemer - A Political Question?
- Davis v. Bandemer - An Agreeable Test, Inconsistent Results
- Davis v. Bandemer - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias