Voting Rights and Democracy

Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court is considering whether Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering of its State Assembly districts violates the guarantees contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Case Summary

In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature redrew the maps for its State Assembly districts. Legislative leaders for the Republican party, which was in control of the state legislature, organized a secretive mapmaking process open only to members of that party. Meeting behind closed doors, the drafters of the plan, together with expert consultants, drew districts to ensure that their party would wield political power far in excess of votes cast in the polls, thereby maintaining their control of the Assembly no matter what happened in future elections. Twelve voters, affiliated with the Democratic party, brought suit in federal district court, claiming that this partisan gerrymandering was unacceptably partisan. A divided three-judge district court held that the line drawing process was unconstitutional and ordered the Assembly to redraw the districts. The defendants asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of current members of Congress and bipartisan former members of Congress, arguing that partisan gerrymandering subordinates adherents of one political party and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of political association and equal protection for all persons, regardless of their political identity. As our brief explains, the Framers of our nation’s charter established a system of government in which the people choose their elected representatives, not the other way around, writing democratic principles into numerous aspects of the Constitution. Buttressing our Constitution’s commitment to popular sovereignty and self-governance, the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to associate for political ends and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that all Americans enjoy equal protection of the laws regardless of political affiliation. Extreme partisan gerrymandering, which subordinates adherents of a disfavored political party and degrades their right to vote, cannot be squared with the text and history of the Constitution.

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
February 9, 2018

OP-ED: Pa. Republicans are assaulting the rule of law in gerrymander fight

Harrisburg Patriot-News (
Republicans in control of the PA legislature gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, seeking to entrench their party...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Benisek v. Lamone

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 9, 2014

The Future of Voting Rights

Host: Federalist Society
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting...
Participants: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates...
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 28, 2017

Don’t purge voters for choosing not to vote

Akron Beacon Journal
President Donald Trump’s so-called election integrity commission — stocked with voting rights foes — wants...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
October 4, 2017

OP-ED: Justice Kennedy, The First Amendment, and Partisan Gerrymandering

Take Care Blog
Over the course of three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy has developed...
By: David H. Gans