After
the 2000 census reduced the size of the Pennsylvania Congressional
delegation by two members, the Republican-controlled state legislature
passed a redistricting plan that clearly benefited Republican candidates.
Several members of the Democratic party sued in Federal Court, claiming
that the plan was unconstitutional because it violated the one-person,
one-vote principle of Article I, Section 2 of Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, the Privileges
and Immunities Clause, and freedom of
association.
The
Trial Court dismissed all but the Article I, Section 2 claim.
The
Trial Court held that the voters bringing the suit had not proved that
they would be denied representation, only that they would be represented
by Republican officials.Because they were not denied the right to vote, to be placed on
the ballot box, to associate as a party, or to express their political
opinions, their political discrimination claims failed.
However,
the Trial Court found the act unconstitutional because it created
districts with different numbers of voters, thereby violating the
one-person, one-vote principle established in Baker v. Carr. Because the plaintiffs had shown that it was
possible to create districts with smaller differences, and because the
defendants had failed to justify the disparities resulting under their
plan, it was therefore unconstitutional.
In a
split decision that had no majority opinion, the Court decided not to
intervene in this case because no appropriate judicial solution could be
found.
Justice
Scalia, for a four-member plurality, wrote that the Supreme Court should
declare all claims related to political (but not racial) gerrymandering nonjusticiable, meaning that courts could not hear them.
Because
no court had been able to find an appropriate remedy to political
gerrymandering claims in the 18 years since the Surpreme Court decided Davis
v. Bandemer which had held that such
a remedy had not been found yet but might exist, Scalia wrote that it was
time to recognize that the solution simply did not exist.
Justice
Kennedy, wrote in his concurring opinion (which provided the deciding
fifth vote for the judgment) that the Court should rule narrowly in this
case that no appropriate judicial solution could be found, but not give up
on finding one eventually.
