davis bandemer argued october decided june indiana legislature consists house representatives senate representatives serve terms elections seats every two years senators serve terms half seats election every two years senators elected districts representatives elected mixture multimember districts legislature reapportioned districts pursuant census time republican majorities house senate reapportionment plan provided districts senate districts house multimember districts generally included state metropolitan areas appellee indiana democrats filed suit federal district appellant state officials alleging reapportionment plan constituted political gerrymander intended disadvantage democrats particular district lines drawn mix multimember districts intended violate right democrats equal protection fourteenth amendment november case went trial elections held new plan democratic candidates house received votes cast statewide seats filled democratic candidates senate received votes cast statewide democratic candidates elected marion allen counties divided multimember house districts democratic candidates drew vote democratic candidates elected subsequently relying primarily election results proof unconstitutionally discriminatory vote dilution district invalidated reapportionment plan enjoined appellants holding elections pursuant thereto ordered legislature prepare new plan held judgment reversed supp reversed justice white delivered opinion respect part ii concluding political gerrymandering occurred case properly justiciable equal protection clause none identifying characteristics nonjusticiable political question present disposition case involve matter properly decided coequal branch government risk foreign domestic disturbance persuaded judicially discernible manageable standards political gerrymandering cases decided mere fact likely arithmetic presumption one person one vote rule present context compel conclusion claims presented nonjusticiable claim whether political group state chance elect representatives choice political group declines hold claim never justiciable claim submitted political group rather racial group distinguish terms justiciability pp justice white joined justice brennan justice marshall justice blackmun concluded parts iii iv district erred holding appellees alleged proved violation equal protection clause pp threshold showing discriminatory vote dilution required prima facie case equal protection violation district findings adverse effect appellees surmount threshold requirement mere fact apportionment scheme makes difficult particular group particular district elect representatives choice render scheme unconstitutional group electoral power unconstitutionally diminished fact apportionment scheme makes winning elections difficult failure proportional representation alone constitute impermissible discrimination equal protection clause individual districts unconstitutional vote dilution alleged form statewide political gerrymandering mere lack proportional representation sufficient prove unconstitutional discrimination without specific supporting evidence presume case elected disregard disproportionally underrepresented group rather unconstitutional discrimination occurs electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole district apparent holding interference opportunity elect representative one choice sufficient allege prove equal protection violation unless justified acceptable state interest addition contrary conception unconstitutional political gerrymander invite attack almost reapportionment statutes pp relying single election prove unconstitutional discrimination district unsatisfactory without finding reapportionment democrats one next elections secure sufficient vote take control legislature reapportionment consign democrats minority status legislature throughout hope better reapportionment based census district erred concluding reapportionment violated equal protection clause simply showing multimember districts districts constructed safely republican democratic way bolsters contention statewide discrimination democratic voters pp view intentional drawing district boundaries partisan ends reason violates equal protection clause allow constitutional violation found proven effect political party electoral power disproportionate results one election possibly two elections invite judicial interference legislative districting whenever political party suffers polls even state legislature redistricts specific intention disadvantaging one political party election prospects unconstitutional violation members party unless redistricting fact disadvantage polls noted mere lack proportionate results one election suffice regard pp justice joined chief justice justice rehnquist concluding partisan gerrymandering claims major political parties raise nonjusticiable political question reverse district judgment grounds appellees claim nonjusticiable equal protection clause supply judicially manageable standards resolving purely political gerrymandering claims confer group rights equal share political power racial gerrymandering claims justiciable greater warrant equal protection clause gives federal courts intervene protection racial discrimination stronger nexus individual rights group interests present case major political parties claim vulnerable exclusion political process established need constitutional basis judicial intervention resolve political gerrymandering claims costs judicial intervention severe intervention requires courts make policy choices kind suited judicial discretion clear stopping point prevent gradual evolution requirement roughly proportional representation every cohesive political group accordingly political gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political question pp william evans argued cause appellants briefs linley pearson attorney general indiana michael schaefer deputy attorney general alan becker theodore boehm argued cause appellees briefs appellees bandemer et al john swarbrick grover hawkins filed brief appellees indiana naacp state conference branches briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed assembly state california joseph remcho charles marson mexican american legal defense educational fund jose garza antonia hernandez john huerta senate state california allan browne briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed american civil liberties union et al arthur eisenberg burt neuborne charles sims lawrence reuben common cause philip heymann republican national committee roger allan moore mark braden michael hess james parrinello marguerite mary leoni richard borow jonathan steinberg daniel hays lowenstein filed brief california democratic congressional delegation amicus curiae justice white announced judgment delivered opinion part ii opinion parts iii iv justice brennan justice marshall justice blackmun join case review judgment district sustained equal protection challenge indiana state apportionment basis law unconstitutionally diluted votes indiana democrats supp sd ind although find political gerrymandering justiciable conclude district applied insufficiently demanding standard finding unconstitutional vote dilution consequently reverse indiana legislature also known general assembly consists house representatives senate members house representatives members senate members house serve terms elections held seats every two years members senate serve terms senate elections staggered half seats election every two years members houses elected legislative districts senate members elected districts house members elected mixture multimember districts division state districts accomplished legislative enactment signed governor law reapportionment required every years based federal decennial census prohibition frequent reapportionments early general assembly initiated process reapportioning state legislative districts pursuant census time republican majorities house senate governor republican bills introduced houses reapportionment plan duly passed approved governor plan provided districts senate house provided districts senate plan population deviation districts house plan deviation multimember districts generally included metropolitan areas state although every metropolitan area multimember district marion county includes indianapolis combined portions neighboring counties form five districts fort wayne divided two parts part combined portions surrounding county counties make two districts hand south bend divided put partly district partly district part combined part surrounding county counties although county city lines consistently followed township lines generally two plans senate house nested senate district divided exactly two house districts appears little relation lines drawn two plans early suit filed several indiana democrats appellees various state officials appellants alleging reapportionment plans constituted political gerrymander intended disadvantage democrats specifically contended particular district lines drawn mix multimember districts intended violate right democrats equal protection fourteenth amendment district convened hear claims november case went trial elections held new districting plan house seats half senate seats election house races statewide democratic candidates received vote democrats however elected house senate races statewide democratic candidates received vote thirteen democrats elected marion allen counties divided multimember house districts democratic candidates drew vote house seats filled democrats december divided district issued decision declaring reapportionment unconstitutional enjoining appellants holding elections pursuant redistricting ordering general assembly prepare new plan retaining jurisdiction case see supp district majority results elections seemed support argument bias favoring majority party republicans instituted reapportionment plan although thought figures unreliable predictors future elections concluded warranted examination circumstances surrounding passage reapportionment statute see ibid course examination noted irregular shape district lines peculiar mix multimember districts failure district lines adhere consistently political subdivision boundaries define communities interest also found inadequate explanations given configuration districts adherence one person one vote imperative voting rights act retrogression requirement factors concluded evidenced intentional effort favor republican incumbents candidates disadvantage democratic voters achieved stacking democrats districts large democratic majorities splitting districts give republicans safe excessive majorities districts elections indicated plan also discriminatory effect proportionate voting influence democratic voters adversely affected scheme purposely inhibit prevent proportional representation tolerated district invalidated statute defendants appealed seeking review district rulings case justiciable justiciable equal protection violation occurred noted probable jurisdiction ii address first question whether case presents justiciable controversy nonjusticiable political question although district never explicitly stated case justiciable holding clearly rests finding appellees urge past acknowledged acted upon justiciability purely political gerrymandering claims appellants contend affirmed merits decisions lower courts finding claims nonjusticiable since baker carr consistently adjudicated equal protection claims legislative districting context regarding inequalities population districts course cases developed enforced one person one vote principle see reynolds sims past decisions also make clear even population deviation among districts racial gerrymandering presents justiciable equal protection claim multimember district context reviewed occasion rejected districting plans unconstitutionally diminished effectiveness votes racial minorities see rogers lodge mobile bolden white regester whitcomb chavis burns richardson fortson dorsey also adjudicated claims configuration districts violated equal protection respect racial ethnic minorities although never struck apportionment plan claim see jewish organizations williamsburgh carey wright rockefeller multimember district cases also repeatedly stated districting operate minimize cancel voting strength racial political elements voting population raise constitutional question fortson supra emphasis added see also gaffney cummings whitcomb chavis supra burns richardson supra finally gaffney cummings supra upheld equal protection political gerrymandering challenge state legislative redistricting scheme formulated bipartisan effort try provide political representation level approximately proportional strength political parties state case adjudicated type purely political equal protection claim brought although threshold matter expressly hold claim justiciable regardless lack specific holding consideration merits claim gaffney face discussion justiciability appellant brief combined repeated reference opinions constitutional deficiencies plans dilute vote political groups least supports inference cases justiciable years since baker carr gaffney however also affirmed number decisions lower courts rejected justiciability purely political gerrymandering claims wmca lomenzo summarily supp sdny frequently cited cases affirmed decision district upholding temporary apportionment plan state new york district determined political gerrymandering equal protection challenges plan nonjusticiable see justice harlan opinion concurring summary affirmance expressed understanding affirmance based approval lower finding nonjusticiability see see also jimenez hidalgo county water improvement district summarily sd tex ferrell hall summarily supp wd wells rockefeller summarily supp sdny although summary affirmances arguably support inference claims justiciable cases federal state courts adjudicated political gerrymandering claims summarily affirmed dismissed want substantial federal question see wiser hughes dismissing want substantial federal question appeal legislative districting md kelly bumpers summarily supp ed ark archer smith summarily graves barnes supp wd sets cases may look different directions extent summary affirmances indicate nonjusticiability political gerrymander cases bound decisions observed unusual find appropriate give full consideration question subject previous summary action washington yakima indian nation see also edelman jordan issue appellants us find precluded summary dispositions important one deserves consideration outlines political question doctrine described large extent defined baker carr synthesis effort found following passage opinion apparent several formulations vary slightly according settings questions arise may describe political question although one elements identify essentially function separation powers prominent surface case held involve political question found textually demonstrable constitutional commitment issue coordinate political department lack judicially discoverable manageable standards resolving impossibility deciding without initial policy determination kind clearly nonjudicial discretion impossibility undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack respect due coordinate branches government unusual need unquestioning adherence political decision already made potentiality embarrassment multifarious pronouncements various departments one question unless one formulations inextricable case bar dismissal nonjusticiability ground political question presence doctrine treat one political questions one political cases courts reject law suit bona fide controversy whether action denominated political exceeds constitutional authority cases reviewed show necessity discriminating inquiry precise facts posture particular case impossibility resolution semantic cataloguing question consistency state action federal constitution question decided decided political branch government coequal risk embarrassment government abroad grave disturbance home take issue tennessee constitutionality action challenged need appellants order succeed action ask enter upon policy determinations judicially manageable standards lacking judicial standards equal protection clause well developed familiar open courts since enactment fourteenth amendment determine particular facts must discrimination reflects policy simply arbitrary capricious action true type claim presented baker carr subsequently resolved formulation one person one vote rule see reynolds sims mere fact however may similarly perceive likely arithmetic presumption instant context compel conclusion claims presented nonjusticiable one person one vote principle yet developed baker decided time rely potential rule finding justiciability instead language quoted clearly indicates contemplated simply legislative line drawing districting context susceptible adjudication applicable constitutional criteria furthermore formulating one person one vote formula characterized question posed election districts disparate size issue fair representation cases anyone deprived vote person vote counted rather one electoral district elects single representative another district size elects two elector vote former district less weight sense may vote district represented one legislator neighbor adjoining district votes represented two reynolds accordingly observed since achieving fair effective representation citizens concededly basic aim legislative apportionment conclude equal protection clause guarantees opportunity equal participation voters election state legislators diluting weight votes place residence impairs basic constitutional rights fourteenth amendment much invidious discriminations based upon factors race issue course different adjudicated reynolds concern districts unequal size everyone right vote vote counted elector may vote represented number lawmakers rather claim political group state chance elect representatives choice political group nevertheless issue one representation decline hold claims never justiciable racial gerrymander cases white regester whitcomb chavis indicate much cases population variation among districts one precluded voting claim instead identifiable racial ethnic group insufficient chance elect representative choice district lines redrawn remedy alleged defect cases adjudicated merits claims rejecting claim whitcomb sustaining regester clearly gaffney cummings districts also passed muster reynolds formula claim legislature manipulated district lines afford political groups various districts enhanced opportunity elect legislators choice although advising caution said must respond claims even acceptable populationwise plan invidiously discriminatory political fairness principle followed emphasis added went hold statute issue violate equal protection clause decisions support conclusion case justiciable gaffney demonstrates claim submitted political group rather racial group distinguish terms justiciability characteristics complaining group immutable group subject historical stigma may relevant manner case adjudicated differences justify refusal entertain case fact justice attempt distinguish political gerrymandering claim racial gerrymandering claims consistently adjudicated demonstrates futility effort conclusion claim case justiciable seems rest dual concern judicially manageable standards exist adjudication claims requires initial policy decision judiciary make yet point standards set forth adjudicating political gerrymandering claim less manageable standards developed racial gerrymandering claims demonstrate initial policy decision regarding example desirability fair group representation made made race cases merely asserts race historically suspect classification individual minority voters rights immediately related racial minority group voting strength combination greater warrant equal protection clause gives federal courts intervene protection racial discrimination suffice render racial gerrymandering claims justiciable post concurring judgment reliance assertions determine justiciability transform narrow categories political questions baker carr carefully defined ad hoc litmus test reactions desirability need judicial application constitutional statutory standards given type claim justice discussion seems reflect approach concludes political gerrymandering may enterprise need judicial intervention post also expresses concern decision today lead political instability judicial malaise post nothing prevent members identifiable groups bringing similar claims begin justice factual assumptions means obviously correct clear political gerrymandering enterprise groups great incentive bring gerrymandering claims given requirement showing discriminatory intent fundamental level however justice analysis flawed focuses perceived need judicial review potential practical problems allowing review validation consideration amorphous factors assessing justiciability alter substantially analysis enunciated baker carr decline justice implicit invitation rethink approach iii determined political gerrymandering claim case justiciable turn question whether district erred holding appellees alleged proved violation equal protection clause preliminarily agree district claim made appellees case claim apportionment discriminates democrats statewide basis appellees district cited instances individual districting within state believe exemplify discrimination appellees claim understand democratic voters state whole democratic voters particular districts subjected unconstitutional discrimination see complaint bandemer plaintiffs although statewide discrimination asserted allegedly accomplished manipulation individual district lines focus equal protection inquiry necessarily somewhat different involved review individual districts also agree district order succeed bandemer plaintiffs required prove intentional discrimination identifiable political group actual discriminatory effect group see mobile bolden confident law challenged discriminatory effects democrats record support finding discrimination intentional thus decline overturn district finding discriminatory intent clearly erroneous indeed quite aside anecdotal evidence shape house senate districts alleged disregard political boundaries think likely whenever legislature redistricts responsible legislation know likely political composition new districts prediction whether particular district safe one democratic republican candidate competitive district either candidate might win said gaffney cummings idle think contend political consideration taken account fashioning reapportionment plan sufficient invalidate cases indicate quite contrary see white regester burns richardson whitcomb chavis abate mundt essence districting produce different politically fair result reached elections large winning party take legislative seats politics political considerations inseparable districting apportionment political profile state party registration voting records available precinct precinct ward ward subdivisions may identical census tracts overlaid census map requires special genius recognize political consequences drawing district line along one street rather another obvious absolutely unavoidable location shape districts may well determine political complexion area district lines rarely neutral phenomena well determine district predominantly democratic predominantly republican make close race likely redistricting may pit incumbents one another make difficult election experienced legislator reality districting inevitably intended substantial political consequences may suggested redistrict reapportion work census political data achieve population equality without regard political impact politically mindless approach may produce whether intended grossly gerrymandered results event unlikely political impact plan remain undiscovered time proposed adopted event results known changed intended accept however district legal factual bases concluding act visited sufficiently adverse effect appellees constitutionally protected rights make violation equal protection clause district held apportionment scheme purposely prevents proportional representation unconstitutional democratic voters need show proportionate voting influence adversely affected cases however clearly foreclose claim constitution requires proportional representation legislatures reapportioning must draw district lines come near possible allocating seats contending parties proportion anticipated statewide vote whitcomb chavis white regester typical election legislative seats conducted described geographical districts candidate receiving votes district winning seat allocated district districts competitive defined district case districts anticipated split party vote within range even narrow statewide preference either party produce overwhelming majority winning party state legislature consequence however inherent elections hold reapportionment law violate equal protection clause voters losing party representation legislature proportion statewide vote received party candidates said unprepared hold elections decided plurality vote unconstitutional either districts simply supporters losing candidates legislative seats assigned whitcomb chavis supra true racial well political group white regester supra also true statewide claim well individual district claim draw district lines maximize representation major party require creating many safe seats party demographic predicted political characteristics state permit turn leave minority safe district without representative choice upheld political fairness approach gaffney cummings despite tendency deny safe district minorities realistic chance elect representatives gaffney way suggested constitution requires approach connecticut adopted case cases involving individual multimember districts required substantially greater showing adverse effects mere lack proportional representation support finding unconstitutional vote dilution evidence excluded groups less opportunity participate political processes elect candidates choice refused approve use multimember districts rogers lodge see also jewish organizations williamsburgh carey white regester supra whitcomb chavis supra cases also noted lack responsiveness elected concerns relevant groups see rogers lodge supra white regester supra holdings rest conviction mere fact particular apportionment scheme makes difficult particular group particular district elect representatives choice render scheme constitutionally infirm conviction turn stems perception power influence political process limited winning elections individual group individuals votes losing candidate usually deemed adequately represented winning candidate much opportunity influence candidate voters district presume situation without actual proof contrary candidate elected entirely ignore interests voters true even safe district losing group loses election election thus group electoral power unconstitutionally diminished simple fact apportionment scheme makes winning elections difficult failure proportional representation alone constitute impermissible discrimination equal protection clause see mobile bolden marshall dissenting individual districts unconstitutional vote dilution alleged form statewide political gerrymandering mere lack proportional representation sufficient prove unconstitutional discrimination without specific supporting evidence presume case elected disregard disproportionately underrepresented group rather unconstitutional discrimination occurs electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole although somewhat different formulation previously used describing unconstitutional vote dilution individual district focus inquiries essentially contexts question whether particular group unconstitutionally denied chance effectively influence political process challenge individual district inquiry focuses opportunity members group participate party deliberations slating nomination candidates opportunity register vote hence chance directly influence election returns secure attention winning candidate statewide however inquiry centers voters direct indirect influence elections state legislature whole individual district cases equal protection violation may found electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters opportunity influence political process effectively context finding unconstitutionality must supported evidence continued frustration majority voters effective denial minority voters fair chance influence political process based views reject district apparent holding interference opportunity elect representative one choice sufficient allege make equal protection violation unless justified acceptable state interest state required demonstrate addition contrary conception unconstitutional political gerrymander low threshold legal action invite attack almost reapportionment statutes elections hardly ever produce perfect fit votes representation one person one vote imperative often mandates departure result rule required voting rights act inviting attack minor departures supposed norm much embroil judiciary consistently referred political task legislature task monitored closely unless express tacit goal effect removal legislative halls decline take major step toward end much odds history experience view prima facie case illegal discrimination reapportionment requires showing de minimis effect unprecedented reapportionment cases involving one person one vote principle gaffney cummings white regester provide support requirement present considerably complex context also appropriate require allegations proof challenged legislative plan effects sufficiently serious require intervention federal courts state reapportionment decisions district findings satisfy threshold condition stating proving cause action reaching conclusion district relied primarily results elections democratic candidates state house representatives received votes cast statewide republican candidates yet seats filled republican candidates democrats senate votes cast democratic candidates republicans senate seats filled republicans democrats also relied upon use multimember districts marion allen counties democrats inclined vote democratic amounted population counties republicans seats allocated districts counties disparities enough require neutral justification state eyes district forthcoming relying single election prove unconstitutional discrimination unsatisfactory district observed parties disagree indiana swing state voters sometimes prefer democratic candidates sometimes republican district find act democrats one next elections secure sufficient vote take control assembly indeed district declined hold election results predictable consequences act expressly refused hold results reliable prediction future ones district ask percentage statewide democratic vote increase control either house senate appellants argue without persuasive response appellees democratic candidates received additional percentage points votes cast statewide obtained majority seats houses finding reapportionment consign democrats minority status assembly throughout democrats hope better reapportionment occur census without findings nature district erred concluding act violated equal protection clause district discussion multimember districts created act undermine conclusion purposes statewide political gerrymandering claim districts appear indistinguishable safe republican safe democratic districts simply showing multimember districts state districts constructed safely republican democratic way bolsters contention statewide discrimination democratic voters necessary threshold effect shown multimember districts demonstrated suspect ground particularly useful attaining impermissibly discriminatory ends stage inquiry however multimember district evidence materially aid appellees case furthermore determining constitutionality multimember districts challenged racial gerrymanders rejected view group distinctive interests must represented legislative halls numerous enough command least one seat represents minority living area sufficiently compact constitute district whitcomb rather required proof complaining minority less opportunity participate political processes elect legislators choice whitcomb went observe proof blacks allowed register vote choose political party desired support participate affairs equally represented occasions candidates chosen included among candidates slated democratic party background concluded failure minority legislative seats proportion population emerges function losing elections bias poor negroes voting power ghetto residents may cancelled district held seems mere euphemism political defeat polls whitcomb accordingly rejected challenge multimember districts marion county indiana similar challenge sustained white regester employing criterion namely plaintiffs must produce evidence support finding political processes leading nomination election equally open participation group question members less opportunity residents district participate political processes elect legislators choice participatory approach legality individual multimember districts helpful claim districts discriminate democrats hardly said democrats republicans excluded participating affairs party processes candidates nominated elected constitutional purposes democratic claim case insofar challenges vel non legality multimember districts certain counties like negroes whitcomb failed prove racial gerrymander boils complaint failed attract majority voters challenged multimember districts response approach justice powell suggests alternative method evaluating equal protection claims political gerrymandering view courts look number factors considering claims nature legislative procedures challenged redistricting accomplished intent behind redistricting shapes districts conformity political subdivision boundaries evidence concerning population disparities statistics tending show vote dilution post concurring part dissenting part district case reviewed factors reaching ultimate conclusion unconstitutional vote dilution occurred justice powell concludes findings factors ultimate question vote discrimination upheld according justice powell findings adequately support conclusion boundaries voting districts distorted deliberately arbitrarily achieve illegitimate ends post deliberate arbitrary distortion boundaries turn apparently distinguishes gerrymandering loose sense common practice party power choose redistricting plan gives advantage polls post gerrymandering unconstitutional sense although completely clear distinction two categories gerrymander crux justice powell analysis seems least cases intentional drawing district boundaries partisan ends reason violates equal protection clause disagree however conception constitutional violation specifically even state legislature redistricts specific intention disadvantaging one political party election prospects believe unconstitutional discrimination members party unless redistricting fact disadvantage polls moreover discussed mere lack proportionate results one election suffice regard reached conclusion cases involving challenges individual multimember districts applies equally individual multimember district cases found equal protection violations history disproportionate results appeared conjunction strong indicia lack political power denial fair representation see supra cases racial minorities asserting successful equal protection claims essentially shut political process statewide political gerrymandering context prior cases lead analogous conclusion equal protection violations may found history actual projected disproportionate results appears conjunction similar indicia mere lack control general assembly single election rise requisite level requirement showing possibly transitory results appear depart justice powell stripped factors verbiage justice powell analysis turns determination lack proportionate election results support finding equal protection violation least circumstances concrete effect democrats indiana terms election results district one election percentage democrats elected lower percentage total democratic votes cast justice powell view disproportionality combined clearly discriminatory intent part general assembly manipulation district lines apportionment process sufficient conclude fair representation denied factors disproportionate election results however contribute finding democratic voters disadvantaged fact support finding intention discriminate present districts drawn accordance intention show actual disadvantage beyond shown election results surely actual disadvantage terms fair representation group level placed district supermajority democratic voters district departs political boundaries placement affects election results political power statewide actual disadvantage occurred consequently justice powell view allow constitutional violation found proven effect political party electoral power disproportionate results one possibly two elections view however contains explanation lack proportionate election results suffice political gerrymandering cases cases involving racial gerrymandering fact justice powell opinion silent relevance substantive standard developed multimember district cases political gerrymandering cases rejecting justice powell approach mean intimate factors considers entirely irrelevant election results obviously relevant showing effects required prove political gerrymandering claim view district configurations may combined vote projections predict future election results also relevant effects showing factors even relevant effects issue might well relevant equal protection claim equal protection argument proceed along following lines discriminatory effect discriminatory intent legislation examined valid underpinnings thus evidence exclusive legislative process deliberate drawing district lines accordance accepted gerrymandering principles relevant intent evidence valid invalid configuration relevant whether districting plan met legitimate state interests course consistent equal protection cases generally course follow assumed discriminatory intent found insufficient discriminatory effect constitute equal protection violation therefore reach question state interests legitimate otherwise served particular districts created legislature consequently valid invalid configuration districts issue need consider seems inappropriate however view separate components equal protection analysis factors considered together without regard separate functions meaning undifferentiated consideration various factors confuses import factor disguises essential conclusion justice powell opinion disproportionate election results alone sufficient effect support finding constitutional violation sum decline adopt approach enunciated justice powell view approach departs past cases invites judicial interference legislative districting whenever political party suffers polls recognize view may difficult application determining electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole supra necessity difficult inquiry nevertheless believe recognizes delicacy intruding political legislative functions time consistent prior cases regarding individual multimember districts formulated parallel standard iv sum hold political gerrymandering cases properly justiciable equal protection clause also conclude however threshold showing discriminatory vote dilution required prima facie case equal protection violation case findings made district adverse effect appellees surmount threshold requirement consequently judgment district reversed footnotes bills vehicle bills bills real content bills passed referred house eventually conference committee consisted entirely republican members four democratic advisers committee appointed voting powers excluded substantive work committee republican state committee funded computerized study outside firm produced districting map eventually used democratic advisers allowed access computer results study nevertheless attempted develop apportionment proposals using census data days end legislative session conference committee presented plan legislature democratic minority also presented alternative plan majority plan passed houses voting along party lines signed law governor multitude conflicting statistical evidence also introduced trial district however specifically declined credit evidence noting wish choose statistician credible less credible noted various house districts combined urban suburban rural voters dissimilar interests many districts unwieldy shapes using marion county one example observed county exactly population support house seats nevertheless combined various surrounding areas form five districts maintained county prior delegation even though fact suffered population decrease believing resulting multimember districts suspect terms compactness concluded rational reason support addition quoted deposition testimony speaker house follows sussman like give whatever reasons operative mind maintaining creating districts regard districts marion county districts dailey political sussman political factors dailey wanted save many incumbent republicans possible also quoted deposition testimony senator bosma follows sussman newspaper article says questioning townsend input actual map drawing bosma said privilege offer minority map advise advance accepted accurate bosma accurate might add make goals opposite team ibid familiar techniques political gerrymandering democratic republican case may votes stacked wasted creating districts democrats form majorities much greater necessary carry districts concurrently republican votes spread among districts form safe perhaps majorities democratic votes cracked split dispersing way ineffectual judge pell writing dissent disagreed assuming purposes analysis political gerrymandering case justiciable concluded appellees proved discrimination rather relative voting strengths properly ascertained view plan advantaged disadvantaged parties equally democrats voting strength senate less house see judge pell also rejected majority analysis multimember districts thought state followed rational nondiscriminatory criteria formulating plan consolidated suit proceedings another lawsuit filed indiana naacp naacp suit challenged plans unconstitutional dilutions black vote indiana violation fourteenth fifteenth amendments voting rights act amended rejecting naacp claims district majority found voting efficacy naacp plaintiffs impinged upon politics race dispute blacks state vote overwhelmingly democratic consequently majority found fifteenth amendment voting rights act violation dissent concurred result gave different reasons reaching conclusion naacp appeal dispositions consequently claims us political gerrymandering claims illegitimate policy determinations justice believes made points two first preference nonpartisan opposed partisan gerrymanders second preference proportionality group level however must focus type claim neither policy determinations kind clearly nonjudicial discretion baker carr first merely recognizes nonpartisan gerrymanders fact aimed guaranteeing rather infringing fair group representation second preference proportionality per se preference level parity votes representation sufficient ensure significant minority voices heard majorities consigned minority status hardly illegitimate extrapolation general majoritarian ethic objective fair adequate representation recognized reynolds sims passage gaffney expresses view similar robert dixon one foremost scholars reapportionment observed hether nonpopulation factors expressly taken account shaping political districts inevitably everpresent operative influence election outcomes sets districts key concept grasp neutral lines legislative districts every line drawn aligns partisans interest blocs particular way different alignment result putting line place dixon fair criteria procedures establishing legislative districts representation redistricting issues grofman lijphart mckay scarrow eds discriminatory intent may difficult prove context course mean need proved succeed claim although cases involved racial groups believe principles developed cases apply equally claims political groups individual districts note however elements necessary successful vote dilution claim may difficult prove relation claim political group example historical patterns exclusion political processes evidence support vote dilution claim general likely present racial group political group although opinion relies cases relating challenges racial groups individual multimember districts nothing herein intended way suggest alteration standards developed cases evaluating claims requirement threshold showing derived peculiar characteristics political gerrymandering claims contemplate similar requirement apply equal protection cases outside particular context district apparently thought political group suffering discrimination voters voted democratic assembly candidates judge pell dissent argued allegedly disfavored group defined voters counted vote democratic election election thus excluding vote republican ticket time time counted true believers averaging democratic vote cast two different elections statewide offices voting thought rule personality factors relatively unimportant although accepting judge pell definition democratic voters strongly suggested reapportionment discriminatory effect response position appellees take challenge claiming judge pell chose wrong election years purpose averaging democratic votes dispute need resolved noted even district correctly identified constitutional shortcomings house districting automatically call invalidating provisions senate relevant fact senate appearing district findings elections fill senate seats democrats statewide vote elected candidates face hardly grounds invalidating senate districting counselled striking entire apportionment statute constitutional evil cured lesser means whitcomb chavis although justice powell asserts mischaracterize cases effects addition disproportionality required demonstrated prove discriminatory intent note effects test cite initially set forth white regester decided expressly determined proof discriminatory intent necessary component equal protection claim moreover voting rights act large extent borrowed effects test white explicitly declined require showing discriminatory intent may true recent cases turned question discriminatory intent imply abandoned effects discussion adopted earlier moreover believe justice powell incorrectly asserts one election must pass successful racial political gerrymandering claim may brought post concurring part dissenting part projected election results based district boundaries past voting patterns may certainly support type claim even election yet held challenged districting justice powell proffers additional election results elections support conclusion results considered district decline determine significance without benefit factual development meaning terms democratic power overall long run nevertheless note terms actual percentages house election results cited justice powell exhibited less discrepancy democratic votes cast democratic representatives elected results opposed casts least doubt import results equal protection cases true discriminatory effect readily apparent heightened effect required see supra real difference type equal protection claim others thus rejected none district subsidiary factual conclusions merely based view applicable law disregarded irrelevant case held insufficient inadequately supported district ultimate legal conclusions specifically rejected district finding discriminatory intent rejected district findings election results contours particular districts simply determined aside election results none facts found district relevant question discriminatory effects consequently since need progress beyond point given conclusion unconstitutional discriminatory effects shown matter law need consider district factual findings factors addressed justice powell although recognize difficulty inquiry share justice apparent lack faith lower courts abilities distinguish disproportionality per se lack fair representation continued disproportionality conjunction indicia may demonstrate see post opinion concurring judgment puzzled justice powell conclusion contemplate test one person one vote requirement relevance opinion clearly adopt limited review chief justice burger concurring judgment join justice opinion surprising citizens troubled gerrymandering turn first courts redress de tocqueville perceptive commentator country observed carcely question arises become sooner later subject judicial debate de tocqueville democracy america reeve trans question urge craft judicial remedy perceived injustice view framers constitution envisioned quite different scheme placed responsibility correction flaws people relying influence elected representatives justice frankfurter wrote entered political arena framers carefully deliberate forethought refused enthrone judiciary situation others like nature appeal relief belong appeal must informed civically militant electorate democratic society like relief must come aroused popular conscience sears conscience people representatives event nothing judicially unseemly make terrorem pronouncements indulge merely empty rhetoric sounding word promise ear sure disappointing hope baker carr dissenting opinion today holds claims political gerrymandering lodged members one political parties make system justiciable equal protection clause fourteenth amendment nothing precedents compels us take step every reason hold partisan gerrymandering claims major political parties raise nonjusticiable political question judiciary leave legislative branch framers constitution unquestionably intended accordingly reverse district judgment grounds appellees claim nonjusticiable little doubt emergence strong stable system country contributed enormously sound effective government preservation health political institutions state federal depends small extent continued vitality system permits stability measured change opportunity control drawing electoral boundaries legislative process apportionment critical traditional part politics one plays small role fostering active participation political parties every level thus legislative business apportionment fundamentally political affair challenges manner apportionment carried parties responsible process present political question truest sense term turn matters federal judiciary inject courts heated partisan issues predictable courts respond moving away nebulous standard plurality fashions today toward form rough proportional representation political groups consequences shift immense unfortunate believe offers shred evidence suggest framers constitution intended judicial power encompass making fundamental choices nation governed believe proportional representation towards expansion equal protection doctrine lead consistent history traditions political institutions pays little heed considerations inform sensible jurisprudence article iii equal protection clause reflexive application precedent ignores maxim articularly dealing claims broad provisions constitution derive content interpretative process inclusion exclusion imperative generalizations based qualified concrete situations gave rise must applied context disregard variant controlling facts gomillion lightfoot cases one may profoundly affect governance nation enough cite precedent examine possible limits lacking possible flaws appellees indiana democrats claim indiana state apportionment discriminates democrats statewide basis diluting votes thereby depriving proportionate share political influence baker carr frankfurter dissenting relying principally baker carr supra reynolds sims gaffney cummings line racial gerrymandering cases including rogers lodge white regester holds appellees purely political equal protection claim ante present political question therefore justiciable specifically holds fact vote dilution claim submitted political group rather racial group distinguish terms justiciability ante plurality recognizes however nviting attack minor departures supposed norm much embroil judiciary consistently referred political task legislature task monitored closely unless express tacit goal effect removal legislative halls ante accordingly although plurality analysis generally modeled racial gerrymandering cases plurality require somewhat different threshold showing apportionment discriminatory effects unconstitutional discrimination occurs electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole ante step taken today momentous one followed future lead political instability judicial malaise members major political parties protected equal protection clause dilution voting strength members every identifiable group possesses distinctive interests tends vote basis interests able bring similar claims federal courts alternative attempt recreate complex process legislative apportionment context adversary litigation order reconcile competing claims political religious ethnic racial occupational socioeconomic groups even way limiting claims organized political parties fact remains losing party losing group legislators every reapportionment invited fight battle anew federal apportionment important legislators political parties burden proof plurality places political gerrymandering plaintiffs unlikely deter routine lodging complaints notwithstanding plurality threshold requirement discriminatory effects holding political gerrymandering claims justiciable opened door pervasive unwarranted judicial superintendence legislative task apportionment simply clear stopping point prevent gradual evolution requirement roughly proportional representation every cohesive political group view enterprise flawed inception equal protection clause supply judicially manageable standards resolving purely political gerrymandering claims group right equal share political power ever intended framers fourteenth amendment rests case precedent cases relies require take next step political thicket colegrove green opinion frankfurter baker carr reaffirmed lawsuit held involve political question lack judicially discoverable manageable standards resolving impossibility deciding without initial policy determination kind clearly nonjudicial discretion apparent first found workable constitutional standard applying equal protection clause state legislative districting reynolds sims supra today extended principles baker carr reynolds sims test legislative districting plan grounds partisan political gerrymandering indeed one year reynolds sims unanimous summarily affirming judgment determining political gerrymandering challenge nonjusticiable justice harlan pointed action constituted rejection contentions partisan gerrymandering may subject federal constitutional attack fourteenth amendment wmca lomenzo concurring opinion question raised today years later whether apply familiar udicial standards equal protection clause baker carr without forced make nonjudicial policy determination resort standard judicially manageable order answer question necessary interpret equal protection clause justice harlan pointed dissent baker carr suggestion courts lack standards decide cases relevant question justiciability also perhaps fundamentally determination whether cognizable constitutional claim asserted case baker carr involved initial interpretation equal protection clause effect ruled arbitrary capricious discrimination individual voters respect weight votes state cognizable claim equal protection clause see harlan dissenting threshold determination reach meaning equal protection clause basis holding complaint tennessee voters justiciable even arbitrary capricious standard threatened prove unmanageable difficulty pretermitted relatively simple judicially manageable requirement population equality among districts adopted following term reynolds sims see bickel reapportionment reapportionment pp polsby ed baker carr require hold right asserted case similarly within intendment equal protection clause determinable standards developed enforce clause right asserted baker carr individual right vote whose weight arbitrarily subjected debasement rights asserted case group rights equal share political power representation arbitrary capricious standard discussed baker carr serve basis recognizing rights indeed today rely standard instead justifies extension vote dilution claims mainstream political groups pronouncement reynolds surely indicates justiciability claims going adequacy representation state legislatures ante reynolds makes plain one person one vote principle safeguards individual right vote interests political groups extent citizen right vote debased much less citizen fact individual lives legitimate reason overweighting diluting efficacy vote reason individual right vote state legislators unconstitutionally impaired weight substantial fashion diluted compared votes citizens living parts state thus right guaranteed equal protection clause interpreted reynolds right voter vote weighted equally citizens mobile bolden plurality opinion case mainstream political groups accepted argument asserted entitlement group representation bolden traced one person one vote principle course true right person vote equal basis voters draws much significance political associations exercise reflects altogether different matter conclude political groups independent constitutional claim representation decisions hold squarely citing jewish organizations williamsburgh carey white regester whitcomb chavis racial gerrymandering cases require recognition group right outside context racial discrimination justice frankfurter observed cases involving negro disfranchisement exception principle avoiding federal judicial intervention matters state government absence explicit clear constitutional imperative controlling command law plain unequivocal end discrimination negro compelling motive civil war amendments fifteenth expresses terms less true equal protection clause fourteenth cases wall strauder west virginia nixon herndon baker carr dissenting opinion clearly members democratic republican parties claim discrete insular group vulnerable exclusion political process dominant group political parties dominant groups offered reason believe incapable fending political process indeed good reason think political gerrymandering enterprise see cain reapportionment puzzle order gerrymander legislative majority must weaken safe seats thus exposing incumbents greater risks defeat risks may refuse accept past certain point similarly overambitious gerrymander lead disaster legislative majority created seats hopes win relatively narrow victories swing overall voting strength tend cost legislative majority seats gerrymander becomes ambitious generally major party presumably ample weapons disposal conduct partisan struggle often leads partisan apportionment also often leads bipartisan one proof us political gerrymandering evil checked cured people parties absent proof see basis concluding need let alone constitutional basis judicial intervention plurality agrees unwise embroil judiciary consistently referred political task legislature ante moreover plurality willing presume elected candidates ignore interests voters losing candidate correctly observes power influence political process limited winning elections ante propositions support position costs judicial intervention severe political gerrymandering simply cause intolerable harm ability major political groups advance interests moreover new group right created today decision particularly unjustifiable context claim founded supposed diminution statewide voting influence political group none elections indiana legislature statewide voters district elect representatives district treat loss candidates nominated party voter choice harm individual voter voter vote candidates represented direct sense clearly exceeds limits equal protection clause reasoning members political party one state able challenge congressional districting plan adopted state grounds party unfairly represented state congressional delegation thus injuring members national party reliance gaffney cummings insufficient overcome objections general group right equal political representation although gaffney treated political gerrymandering claim justiciable opinion observation districting inevitably intended substantial political consequences reluctance undertake impossible task extirpating politics essentially political processes sovereign equally support holding whatever harms political gerrymandering may sometimes occasion tolerated inextricably associated legislative business redistricting addition since gaffney rejected challenge bipartisan gerrymandering hand simply confront difficulties framing manageable standard adjudicating claims accordingly gaffney bar full consideration difficulties furthermore fails explain bipartisan gerrymander approved gaffney affects individuals differently partisan gerrymander makes vulnerable constitutional challenge today gaffney connecticut part bipartisan effort drawn plan intended provide rough sort proportional representation two major political parties declined invalidate plan undertook minimize eliminate political strength group party recognize suggested judicial interest lowest ebb state purports fairly allocate political power parties accordance voting strength within quite tolerable limits succeeds ibid citations omitted bipartisan gerrymander employs technique effect individual voters partisan gerrymander instance groups individuals assigned districts eye towards promoting ends political party incumbent legislators groups within party lose chance elect representative belongs party assigned district opposing party holds overwhelming advantage independent voters may lose chance influence outcome elections district one party sufficiently strong majority plurality acknowledges scheme upheld gaffney tended deny safe district minorities realistic chance elect representatives ante bipartisan arrangement two groups legislators constitutionally permissible believe held gaffney terms rights individuals equally permissible legislative majority employ means pursue interests opposition party determination treat claims mainstream political parties justiciable thus emerges precisely sort initial policy determination kind clearly nonjudicial discretion baker carr recognized characteristic political questions effect decided constitutionally acceptable parties waste votes individuals bipartisan gerrymander long parties deprived group voting strength extent exceed plurality threshold requirement choice confers greater rights powerful political groups individuals meaning equal protection clause ii standard plurality proposes exemplifies intractable difficulties deriving judicially manageable standard equal protection clause adjudicating political gerrymandering claims plurality rejects standard require drawing district lines come near possible allocating seats contending parties proportion anticipated statewide vote ante unconstitutional discrimination occurs electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole ante view standard time either prove unmanageable arbitrary else evolve towards loose form proportionality cf shapiro gerrymandering unfairness ucla rev either outcome calamitous federal courts system vote dilution analysis far less manageable extended major political parties confined racial minority groups first increase number competing claims equal group representation make judicial review apportionment vastly complex designing apportionment plan impair degrade voting strength several groups difficult designing plan effect one group simple reason number criteria plan must meet increases number solutions satisfy criteria decrease even impossible reconcile competing claims political racial groups predictable result greater judicial intrusion apportionment process second membership racial group immutable characteristic voters often move one party support candidates parties consequently difficulty measuring voting strength heightened case major political party difficult enough measure voter group voters influence political process whole ante group racial minority particular district community group major political party difficulty greater constitutional basis intervening far tenuous moreover intervention likely move direction proportional representation political parties clear analogy problem arises racial gerrymandering cases order decide whether electoral system made harder minority voters elect candidates prefer must idea mind hard minority voters elect preferred candidates acceptable system thornburg gingles ante concurring judgment norm must make reference even loose one relation racial minority group share electorate share elected representatives order implement plurality standard thus necessary courts adopt analogous norm order assess whether voting strength political party degraded apportionment either statewide basis particular districts absent norm inquiry plurality proposes standardless make adjudication political gerrymandering claims impossible implicit plurality opinion today least use simple proportionality standard measuring normal representational entitlements political party plurality say history actual projected disproportionate results together proof denial fair representation lack political power constitute equal protection violation ante sure plurality qualified use standard proportional representation variety ways avoid requirement proportional representation question whether qualifications likely enduring face tremendous political pressures courts confront called decide political gerrymandering claims easily measured indicia political power relate solely winning losing elections grave risk plurality various attempts qualify condition group right created gradually pale importance likely remain loose form proportionality deviations proportionality permissible significant persistent deviations proportionality suspect courts forced look form undue disproportionality respect electoral success political gerrymandering claims justiciable otherwise find decisions turning imponderables whether legislators one party fairly represented voters course one sense requirement proportional representation whether loose absolute judicially manageable declare equal protection clause required proportional representation within certain fixed tolerances doubt district courts able apply edict flaw pronouncement however use equal protection clause vehicle making fundamental policy choice contrary intent framers traditions republic political question doctrine articulated baker carr rightly requires refrain making policy choices order evade otherwise lack judicially manageable standards see unfortunately drift towards proportional representation apparent even plurality opinion although times plurality seems require political party essentially shut political process constitutional violation found ante plurality explanation deficiencies district approach focuses access political process whole entirely statewide electoral success thus critical inquiry appears whether complaining political party expected regain control state legislature next elections backed majority voters ante aid inquiry courts must apparently also ask percentage statewide vote complaining political party increase control legislature one houses ibid plurality approach shown challenged apportionment plan one party consistently fail gain control legislature even wins majority votes justified finding threshold showing met point legislation examined valid underpinnings ante may fairly doubted last step anything formality except perhaps case bipartisan gerrymanders proved unexpectedly favorable one party consequently although plurality criticizes justice powell effectively concluding disproportionate election results alone sufficient effect support finding constitutional violation ante plurality arrives conclusion foreseeable disproportionate election results suffice prove constitutional violation thus plurality opinion ultimately rests political preference proportionality outright claim proportional results required conviction greater departure proportionality suspect apportionment plan becomes preference proportionality serious tension essential features state legislative elections districting represents middle ground statewide elections proportional representation political parties constitutional preference proportionality legitimacy districting called question voting strength less evenly distributed groups invariably diminished districting compared proportional systems electing representatives moreover one implication districting system voters cast votes candidates districts statewide slate legislative candidates put forward parties consequently efforts determine party voting strength presuppose norm exist statewide elections representatives along party lines plurality theory also internally inconsistent plurality recognizes given normal dispersion party strength elections likely even narrow statewide preference one party give party disproportionately large majority legislature ante plurality prepared tolerate effect spell end elections require reverse gerrymandering ensure greater proportionality minority party means plurality extend greater protection party command majority statewide vote party explanation plurality made political judgment instance elections must taken given statewide majority party candidates frequently result winning party attracts independent voters voters party plurality approach great deal turn whether support voters included part party voting strength plurality reserve question however ultimately answered anomalies result measure party voting strength including voters occasionally vote party candidates arbitrary ignore role voters play discriminate parties command permanent majority electorate given state avoid difficulties generated plurality efforts confine effects generalized group right equal representation recognizing right first instance allow district courts strike apportionment plans basis prognostications outcome future elections future apportionments invites findings matters neither judges anyone else confidence conceded group electoral power unconstitutionally diminished simple fact apportionment scheme makes winning elections difficult ante virtual impossibility reliably predicting difficult win election years view weigh favor holding challenges nonjusticiable racial gerrymandering remain justiciable harms engenders run counter central thrust fourteenth amendment justification given judicial intervention behalf mainstream political parties risks intervention poses political institutions unacceptable political affiliation keystone political trade race ideally jewish organizations williamsburgh carey brennan concurring justice powell justice stevens joins concurring part dissenting part case presents question whether state legislature violates equal protection clause adopting redistricting plan designed solely preserve power dominant political party plan follows doctrine one person one vote ignores neutral factors relevant fairness redistricting answering question plurality expresses view agree partisan political gerrymander violates equal protection clause proof intentional discrimination identifiable political group actual discriminatory effect group ante plurality acknowledges record case supports finding challenged redistricting plan adopted purpose discriminating democratic voters ibid plurality argues however appellees failed establish voting strength diluted statewide despite uncontradicted proof certain key districts grotesquely gerrymandered enhance election prospects republican candidates argument appears rest solely ground legislature accomplished gerrymander consistent one person one vote sense legislature designed voting districts approximately equal population erected direct barriers democratic voters exercise franchise since essence gerrymandering claim members political party group denied right fair effective representation reynolds sims believe claim tested solely reference one person one vote rather number relevant neutral factors must considered plurality ignores factors fails enunciate standards determine whether legislature enacted unconstitutional gerrymander dissent facts exhaustively described district opinion may briefly restated republican party controlled houses indiana general assembly candidate held governor seat pursuant requirements state constitution general assembly undertook legislative redistricting based census data conference committee whose members republicans assigned task drawing district maps assistance private computer firm information fed computer primarily concerned political complexion state precincts redistricting process conducted secret democratic legislators afforded participation designing district maps adopted hearings members public invited express views republican committee revealed proposed redistricting plan two days end legislative session democrats hurriedly presented alternative plan last day session republican plan adopted party line vote houses general assembly governor signed plan law elections held new redistricting plan prior election lawsuit commenced appellees group indiana democrats claimed plan constitutes partisan political gerrymander designed disenfranchise democratic voters violation equal protection clause fourteenth amendment since trial completed election appellees relied part disparity votes cast democratic legislative candidates election seats captured democrats case heard panel district southern district indiana district dissent judge pell made extensive findings fact determined appellees established unconstitutional partisan gerrymander supp sd ind today reverses district without concluding findings clearly erroneous ii gerrymandering deliberate arbitrary distortion district boundaries populations partisan personal political purposes kirkpatrick preisler fortas concurring justice stevens correctly observed gerrymandering violates equal protection clause redistricting plan serves purpose favor one segment whether racial ethnic religious economic political may occupy position strength particular time disadvantage politically weak segment community karcher daggett concurring opinion term gerrymandering however also used loosely describe common practice party power choose redistricting plan gives advantage polls intent discriminate sense may present whenever redistricting occurs see gaffney cummings cousins city council chicago stevens dissenting cert denied moreover since legislative bodies rarely reflect accurately popular voting strength principal political parties effect particular redistricting may perceived unfair see consequently sensitive searching inquiry distinguish gerrymandering loose sense gerrymandering amounts unconstitutional discrimination difficult develop apply standards identify unconstitutional gerrymander courts may seek avoid responsibility enforce equal protection clause finding claim gerrymandering nonjusticiable agree course mistaken allegations case raise justiciable issue moreover convinced appropriate judicial standards developed justice fortas definition unconstitutional gerrymandering properly focuses whether boundaries voting districts distorted deliberately arbitrarily achieve illegitimate ends kirkpatrick preisler supra definition merits gerrymandering claim must determined reference configurations districts observance political subdivision lines criteria independent relevance fairness redistricting see karcher daggett supra stevens concurring case district examined redistricting light factors found among facts boundaries number districts deliberately distorted deprive democratic voters equal opportunity participate state legislative processes plurality makes reference findings fact rejects district ultimate conclusion explanation respects appellees proof fell short establishing discriminatory effect brief review jurisprudence context another kind challenge redistricting claim malapportionment demonstrates pressing need enunciate standards guide legislators redistrict judges determine constitutionality legislative effort equal protection clause guarantees citizens state govern impartially see karcher daggett supra stevens concurring context redistricting guarantee critical importance franchise provides citizens voice legislative process reynolds sims since contours voting district powerfully may affect citizens ability exercise influence vote district lines determined accordance neutral legitimate criteria deciding lines fall state treat voters standing position regardless political beliefs party affiliation chapman meier gaffney cummings supra first cases entertained equal protection challenges redistricting involved allegations state legislatures refused redesign voting districts eliminate gross population disparities among districts baker carr reynolds sims supra decision reynolds sims illustrates two concepts vitally important evaluating equal protection challenge redistricting first recognized equal protection encompasses guarantee equal representation requiring state seek achieve redistricting fair effective representation citizens reynolds sims supra see gaffney cummings concept representation necessarily applies groups groups voters elect representatives individual voters gross population disparities violate mandate equal representation denying voters residing heavily populated districts group opportunity elect number representatives voting strength otherwise entitle population disparities dilute weight individual votes discriminatory effect felt individual votes combined thus fact individual voters heavily populated districts free cast ballot bearing claim malapportionment second time announced principle one person one vote compel eliminate gross disparities among district populations plainly recognized redistricting based number neutral criteria districts equal population one reynolds sims identified several factors guide legislature engaged redistricting example observed districts compact cover contiguous territory precisely alternative ndiscriminate districting open invitation partisan gerrymandering similarly state properly choose give independent representation established political subdivisions adherence community boundaries reasoned deter possibilities gerrymandering allow communities voice legislature directly controls local interests see also mahan howell thus reynolds sims contemplated one person one vote one among several neutral factors serve constitutional mandate fair effective representation see gaffney cummings supra goal redistricting standard judges constitutionality districting plan solely reference doctrine one person one vote may cause two detrimental results first perceived way avoid litigation legislative bodies may place undue emphasis mathematical exactitude subordinating ignoring entirely criteria bear directly fairness redistricting see karcher daggett stevens concurring white dissenting gaffney cummings supra second case illustrates reynolds sims anticipated exclusive primary reliance one person one vote betray constitutional promise fair effective representation enabling legislature engage intentionally clearly discriminatory gerrymandering see wells rockefeller harlan dissenting light foregoing principles believe plurality opinion seriously flawed several respects first apparently avoid forceful evidence district lines indisputably designed discriminate democrats plurality describes appellees claim alleging democratic voters state whole democratic voters particular districts subjected unconstitutional discrimination ante characterization inconsistent appellees proof district finding statewide discriminatory effect resulting individual districting exemplif ies discrimination ibid democratic voters number critical districts focus unconstitutional discrimination district found effect discrimination felt state whole plurality also erroneously characterizes harm members losing party suffer group deprived deliberate arbitrary distortion district boundaries opportunity elect representatives choosing may plurality suggests representatives entirely ignore interests opposition voters ante defies political reality suppose members losing party much political influence state government members victorious party even conscientious state legislators disregard opportunities reward persons groups active supporters election campaigns similarly one doubts partisan considerations play major role passage legislation appointment state officers surprisingly therefore district expressly found ontrol general assembly crucial members major political parties indiana light findings accept plurality apparent conclusion loss crucial position constitutionally insignificant long losers entirely ignored winners plurality relies almost exclusively one person one vote standard reject appellees convincing proof redistricting plan seriously discriminatory effect voting strength particular districts plurality properly describes claim case denial fair effective representation ante provide explanation complying one person one vote deters identifies gerrymander unconstitutionally discriminates cognizable group voters standard affords protection voting rights individuals protects groups indirectly best karcher daggett stevens concurring even group identity determined solely reference fact members reside particular voting district one person one vote alone protect voting rights group made persons affiliated particular political party seek achieve representation combined voting strength thus facts legislature permitted democratic voter cast one vote erected direct barriers democratic voters exercise franchise drew districts equal population irrelevant claim district lines drawn purpose effect substantially debasing strength votes cast democrats group final basic flaw plurality opinion failure enunciate standard affords guidance legislatures courts legislators judges left wonder whether compliance one person one vote completely insulates partisan gerrymander constitutional scrutiny whether fairer yet undefined standard applies failure articulate clear doctrine area places plurality curious position inviting litigation even appears signal constitutional green light gerrymanderers iii karcher daggett justice stevens echoing decision reynolds sims described factors believe properly guide legislators redistrict judges test redistricting plans constitutional challenges important factors shapes voting districts adherence established political subdivision boundaries relevant considerations include nature legislative procedures apportionment law adopted legislative history reflecting contemporaneous legislative goals make case unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering plaintiff required offer proof concerning factors bear directly fairness redistricting plan well evidence concerning population disparities statistics tending show vote dilution one factor dispositive case appellees offered convincing proof ease mapmakers consistent one person one vote standard may design districting plan purposefully discriminates political opponents well racial minorities computer technology enables gerrymanderers achieve purpose adhering perfectly requirement districts equal population relying factors correctly described justice stevens karcher daggett district carefully reviewed appellees evidence found redistricting law intended unconstitutionally discriminate democrats group held district ultimate determination redistricting plan maintained discriminatory purposes well subsidiary findings fact may set aside reviewing unless clearly erroneous rogers lodge see white regester plurality ignores precedents plurality also disregards various factors discussed district adequate indicia unconstitutional gerrymandering look first legislative process challenged plan adopted district found procedures used redistricting indiana carefully designed exclude democrats participating legislative process february houses general assembly passed reapportionment bills substantive content referred chamber conflicting amendments made purpose process send vehicle bills conference committee whose task apportion representation four conferees four advisers served committee conferees republicans responsible designing voting districts entitled vote result efforts advisers democrats excluded mapmaking process given committee vote legislative process consisted nothing majority party private application computer technology mapmaking republican state committee engaged services computer firm aid conferees task according conference committee chairman data used computer program precinct population race precinct citizens precinct political complexion statewide party voting trends access mapmaking process strictly limited member democratic party member public provided information used generated computer program questioned lack minority party participation redistricting process chairman conference committee stated democrats privilege offer minority map advise advance accepted republicans promised hold public hearings redistricting hearing held mapmaking process time voters views expected influence legislators ibid two days end general assembly regular session first public hearing reapportionment conference committee revealed first time result mapmaking effort timing gave democrats hours review districting precincts ibid last day session april conference committee report introduced vote adopted party line vote houses general assembly ibid next district found maps conspicuously ignore traditional political subdivisions concern adherence principles community interest carefully described mapmakers carved counties cities even townships effort draw lines beneficial majority party many districts meander several counties picking number townships district explained failure honor county boundaries expected detrimental impact citizens exercise vote indiana county government seat local affairs redistricting dissects counties strange shapes lacking common interests one occasion even placing seat one county voting district composed townships counties see house districts infra conditions district expressly found potential voter disillusion nonparticipation great voters forced focus political activities artificial electoral units intelligent voters regardless party affiliation resent sort political manipulation electorate public purpose deposition testimony chairman conference committee revealed mapmakers gave consideration interests communities chairman view concept honoring community interests meant mapmakers refuse divide small suburban community shapes voting districts manner districts divide established communities county township level illustrate community interests ignored appellants district observed example difficult conceive interests shared blacks washington township white suburbanites hamilton boone counties shared interest allen noble county farmers residents downtown fort wayne addition foregoing findings apply house senate plans district also noted substantial evidence appellants motivated solely partisan considerations evidence public interest fair electoral process given consideration appellants indeed noted mapmakers partisan goals made explicitly clear contemporaneous statements republican leaders openly acknowledged goal disadvantage democratic voters one republican house member concisely put name game keep us power naacp plaintiffs exhibit indianapolis star mar section plan completed republican leaders announced house map designed yield safe republican seats democratic seats remainder tossups naacp plaintiffs exhibit gary apr republicans expected senate map regularly produce republican seats democratic seats republicans maintain grip senate even democrats remaining seats naacp plaintiffs exhibit gary apr short record unequivocally demonstrates general assembly deliberately sought design redistricting plan members democratic party deprived fair opportunity win control general assembly least date next redistricting iv turn district findings respect particularly gerrymandering house districts found plan contained voting districts whose irrational shapes called justification house districts findings concerning district configurations reflect panel familiarity indiana geography particular characteristics state political subdivisions district noted voter confusion generated irrational district boundaries exacerbated case fact lines house plan drawn independently senate plan senate voting districts overlaid house districts potential voter confusion becomes readily apparent lines districts intersect crazy quilt district carefully considered multimember districts contained house plan found intentionally employed minimize democratic voting power expressly recognized districting plan may create multimember districts perfectly acceptable equal population standards invidiously discriminatory employed minimize cancel voting strength racial political elements voting population gaffney cummings quoting fortson dorsey case invidious purpose may inferred mapmakers selection areas divided multimember districts districts appear areas used previously others urban areas others areas use required combining rural townships urban areas another county discernible pattern appearance districts areas aspects best employed debase democratic voting strength district determined multimember districts diluted democratic voting strength stacking democrats districts majority overwhelming fragmenting populations democratic voters among districts voting strength reduced example mapmakers split fort wayne city demonstrated tendency vote democratic candidates associated halves areas outlying counties whose residents pattern voting republican candidates see house districts similarly redistricting marion county presents clear example dilution democrats voting strength use multimember districts though population figures entitled county elect exactly house members mapmakers decided tack portions two neighboring counties order artificially create population base entitled elect representatives carved artificial geographical unit five districts whose irregular shapes designed fence democrats one heavily democratic district scatter pockets democratic strength among four districts see house districts appellees demonstrated statistical showing house plan debased effectiveness votes house seats election democratic candidates received percent vote republican candidates received percent democratic representatives elected republicans elected appellees offered startling statistics respect house results marion allen counties two areas multimember districts used counties democratic candidates earned percent vote house seats district observed disparity speaks since half senate membership election every two years election results challenged plan available trial related senate seats results showed seats election democrats elected seats republicans democratic candidates earned percent vote republicans received percent trial appellees contention senate seats democrats safe democratic seats party success polls year fully consistent statewide republican gerrymander contention borne results senate election election democratic candidates received percent vote republicans percent yet senate positions election captured democrats district found agree appellants failed justify discriminatory impact plan showing plan rational basis permissible neutral criteria appellants primary justification plan comports principle one person one vote plan adhere objective population deviations house districts percent senate districts percent reliance one person one vote sufficiently explain justify discrimination plan inflicted democratic voters group district expressly found irregular district shapes justified basis population distribution adherence one person one vote excuse mapmakers failure honor established political community boundaries excuse irrational use multimember districts devastating impact voting strength democrats justification offered appellants district found support contemporaneous goal mapmakers sought maintain black representation general assembly existed prior new districting plan determined impact redistricting fell harshly black voters predominantly democrats none critical findings found plurality today clearly erroneous conclusion want make clear limits standard believe equal protection clause imposes legislators engaged redistricting traditionally determination electoral districts within state matter left legislative branch state government apart doctrine separation powers federal system prescribed constitution federal judges ill equipped generally review legislative decisions respecting redistricting opinion makes clear however precedents hold colorable claim discriminatory gerrymandering presents justiciable controversy equal protection clause federal courts exercising duty adjudicate claims impose heavy burden proof allege redistricting plan violates constitution light baker carr reynolds sims progeny including comparatively recent decisions gaffney cummings case presents paradigm example unconstitutional discrimination members political party happened power findings district effect believe held clearly erroneous accordingly affirm judgment district maps indiana house senate districts follow page opinion uses term redistricting refer process state legislators draw boundaries voting districts terms redistricting apportionment reapportionment frequently used interchangeably backstrom robins eller issues gerrymandering exploratory measure partisan gerrymandering applied minnesota rev grofman criteria districting social science perspective ucla rev technically words apportionment reapportionment apply allocation finite number representatives among fixed number areas districting redistricting refer drawing district lines backstrom robins eller supra see grofman supra district appellees lawsuit consolidated suit brought indiana naacp plaintiffs naacp suit argued redistricting intentionally fragmented concentrations black voters violation fourteenth fifteenth amendments voting rights act district determined plan discriminated black voters race blacks demonstrated overwhelming tendency vote bloc democratic candidates indeed district explicitly found disadvantaging effect plan districts falls particularly hard harsh upon black voters state supp sd ind rather taking challenging district rejection constitutional statutory claims naacp plaintiffs filed brief urging affirmance district judgment plan unconstitutionally discriminates democratic voters group blacks members group webster third new international dictionary unabridged ed defines gerrymander divide territorial unit election districts unnatural unfair way purpose giving one political party electoral majority large number districts concentrating voting strength opposition districts possible term gerrymander coined combining last name elbridge gerry word salamander order describe fancied resemblance salamander irregularly shaped outline election district northeastern massachusetts formed partisan purposes gerry governorship state ibid though many voting districts appearing plans challenged bizarre shapes house district perhaps closely resembles salamander see redistricting maps appended opinion maps reproduced trial exhibits provided parties properly explains prior decisions make clear equal protection challenge redistricting present nonjusticiable political question see baker carr reynolds sims gaffney cummings accordingly join part ii justice white opinion doctrine one person one vote originally regarded means prevent discriminatory gerrymandering since opportunities gerrymandering greatest freedom construct unequally populated districts kirkpatrick preisler advances computer technology achieved since doctrine announced drastically reduced deterrent value permitting political cartographers draw districts equal population intentionally discriminate cognizable groups voters see karcher daggett stevens concurring one person one vote serve intended purpose implementing constitutional mandate fair effective representation therefore consideration also must given neutral factors decisions concerning congressional redistricting focused attention almost exclusively whether challenged plan satisfies one person one vote see karcher daggett supra white weiser kirkpatrick preisler supra cases involving state legislative redistricting case us today refused limit legislature single goal precise population equality gaffney cummings mahan howell plurality correctly concludes redistricting plan unconstitutional merely plan makes difficult group voters elect candidate choice merely plan provide proportional representation ante equal protection clause confers substantive right participate elections equal basis qualified voters mobile bolden plurality opinion constitution guarantee proportional representation protect group defeat polls see white regester plurality leaps conclusion assumption individual group individuals votes losing candidate usually deemed adequately represented winning candidate much opportunity influence candidate voters district ante thus plurality apparently believes effects election results little import long losers access representatives though effects election results suffice establish unconstitutional gerrymander certainly relevant claim may suffice show claimants injured redistricting challenge district found control general assembly crucial political party number reasons majority party elects speaker house person wields considerable power assigning bills committees conduct actual legislative sessions empowered legislative rules prevent bills reaching floor debate vote similarly majority party elects floor leaders houses control flow legislation assignment members committees appointment committee chairmen powers important achievement party legislative goals little doubt minority party plays less substantial role drafting enactment legislation said context constitutional challenge black voters voting scheme absence official obstacles registration voting running office heretofore never deemed insulate electoral system constitutional attack mobile bolden supra white dissenting plurality describes standard requiring threshold showing electoral system arranged manner consistently degrade voter group voters influence political process whole ante see ante plaintiffs apparently meet plurality threshold number elections held challenged plan ante one point plurality acknowledges formulation somewhat different standard previously used test electoral plan equal protection challenge ante also takes pains say opinion suggest alteration standards developed evaluating racial challenges ante see ante curiously plurality goes claim standard consistent used racial group challenges electoral scheme ante equal protection cases generally ante claim simply incorrect cases construed equal protection clause require proof intentional discrimination placing burden plaintiffs trace invidious quality law claimed racially discriminatory racially discriminatory purpose rogers lodge quoting washington davis none cases willing assume discriminatory intent plurality suggests today proper course ante plurality correctly observes prior decisions held disproportionate election results alone violate constitution erroneously suggests holdings flowed solely perception power influence political process limited winning elections ante plurality wholly ignores basic problem underlying prior decisions namely plaintiffs came direct proof discriminatory intent cases concluded proof discriminatory effect including disproportionate election results serious enough give rise inference purposeful discrimination see rogers lodge supra justice white explained decisions white regester whitcomb chavis rested proposition requisite invidious discriminatory purpose inferred proof objective factors concerning discriminatory effect mobile bolden see dissenting opinion see also white regester supra multimember districts unconstitutional used invidiously cancel racial groups voting strength agree plurality suggests standard requiring proof heightened effect invidious intent established directly support cases equal protection violation established history actual projected disproportionate results appears ante racial minority established legislature adopted redistricting law purpose disadvantage group plurality new erroneous standard require plaintiffs wait results several elections creating history discriminatory effect challenge law ante edwards gerrymander one man one vote rev cases proof grotesque district shapes may without provide convincing proof unconstitutional gerrymandering addition maps appended opinion see redistricting maps appended opinions gomillion lightfoot karcher daggett groups may consistently fail elect representatives perfectly neutral election scheme thus test turns election results plurality standard apparently likely identify unconstitutional gerrymander none existed test adopt requires consideration circumstances surrounding plan including factors initially identified reynolds sims determine constitutional violation occurred since democracy work well fairly citizens opportunity become familiar voting districts must focus political activities district boundaries must rationality confusion inevitably follows clearly case indiana citizen finds forced associate several artificial communities depending office ballot thus irrational lines affect ability voters exercise political influence disproportionate election results illustrating effect plan deliberately designed serve purpose minimize voting strength disfavored group plurality ignores clearly erroneous standard rule saying rejected district findings fact merely disregarded irrelevant case held insufficient inadequately supported district ultimate legal conclusions ante gerrymandering case facts legislature drew district boundaries heart equal protection violation beyond stating appellees statistical proof failed satisfy proposed threshold plurality makes effort explain flat assertions district careful findings irrelevant insufficient presumably result haste redistricting law pushed general assembly parts state wholly omitted legislation legislative session therefore amendments passed assign omitted areas voting districts ibid house districts senate districts see redistricting maps appended opinion evidence partisan sparring redistricting process course sufficient establish equal protection violation show legislature pursued legitimate objectives adopting plan evidence probative contemporaneous legislative goals adding support objective facts showing legislature adopted plan sole purpose disadvantaging members political party happened power since indiana house representatives members senate mapmakers readily designed nested plan plan included two house districts within one senate district permitting voters readily identify voting districts corresponding representatives nested plan expected foster voter participation see grofman ucla instead district observed mapmakers drew house districts relevant senate districts context racial gerrymandering claims refused adopt per se rule barring use multimember districts white regester repeatedly recognized characteristics multimember districts namely tendency submerge voting strength minority allowing majority capture district assigned seats make ready means legislative discrimination racial groups political opponents rogers lodge multimember districts house districts district found multimember districts employed marion county particularly suspect respect compactness districts challenged plan determined house district presents grievous example political cartographer handiwork case ibid district forms letter around central city indianapolis includes portions urban southwestside city airport suburban area around ben davis high school west side meridian hills area northern part county ibid expressly determined even though house district satisfies one person one vote simply conceivable justification kind district ibid following map taken exhibit provided parties shows grotesque gerrymandering legislature first proceeded disregard marion county boundary lines essentially form square carved area created oddly shaped multimember districts powerful marion county delegation forced neighboring counties cede turf permit preservation districts consistently returned republicans statehouse moreover appellees statistical showing vote dilution plainly demonstrates gerrymandered districts discriminatory impact votes democrats group election democratic candidates earned approximately percent vote republicans earned approximately percent democrats elected house republicans elected figures elections cited opinion provided elections research center washington supplemental statement filed appellants district following trial also quoted election results including fact democratic candidate governor percent vote house election marion allen county house districts reflected similar disparity republicans captured house seats democrats despite fact democratic candidates earned approximately percent vote counties district discussion district shapes focused primarily house plan following map senate districts marion county area illustrates senate plan also contains districts unusual shapes although population marion county whose boundary lines form square entitled elect exactly seven senators mapmakers ignored population figure county boundaries created eight wholly irrational voting districts one democratic voter remarked senate plan unveiled people live near district line separating senate districts going need indian guide compass figure district naacp plaintiffs exhibit indianapolis star may section evident several opinions filed today standard properly applied determining whether challenged redistricting plan unconstitutional partisan political gerrymander standard proposed plurality explicitly rejected two justices three justices also expressed view plurality standard prove unmanageable arbitrary ante joined burger rehnquist concurring judgment