Cardozo Law Review de•novo
Volume
2017
First Page
155
Last Page
179
Publication Date
2017
Document Type
Article
Abstract
For voters hoping the Supreme Court’s 2017 Term brings relief from partisan gerrymandering, the end of the 2016 Term was inauspicious. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority assumed the legitimacy of “partisan advantage” arguments while the dissent—including Justice Kennedy—warned about the “serious institutional and federalism implications” of judicial intervention in the redistricting process. If past is prologue, this concern for institutional and structural interests does not bode well.
Keywords
Elections and Voting Law, First Amendment, Politics (General), Religion and the Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Criminal Law and Procedure, Health Law and Policy, Juveniles, Immigration Law, Law and Race
Recommended Citation
G. M. Parsons,
The Institutional Case for Partisan Gerrymandering Claims,
2017
Cardozo L. Rev. De-Novo
155
(2017).
Available at:
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/de-novo/54
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Election Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
