Briefs Explaining the Viability of Rules That Limit Partisan Gerrymandering

To help court-watchers sort through more than one thousand pages of amicus briefs in Gill v. Whitford, the Brennan Center has prepared an annotated guide breaking down each brief's most important arguments.

September 19, 2017

Brief of California Citizens Redistricting Commission and FairDistricts Now, Inc. in Support of Appellees

Summary: This brief, filed by two entities organized to ensure that electoral districts in California and Florida are drawn in a non-partisan manner, demonstrates that neutral arbiters like commissions and courts can implement non-partisan redistricting standards in an unbiased manner. The law firm Reed Smith is counsel for this brief.

Brief for the States of Oregon, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia in Support of Appellees

Summary: This brief, filed by seventeen states—including states that are defendants in redistricting litigation—and the District of Columbia, argues that a constitutional standard akin to the one advanced by the Appellees is manageable and adequately accounts for the states' legitimate interests in shaping their own electoral maps. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General of Oregon, are co-counsel for this brief, leading a panel of state Attorneys General.