Briefs Expressing Concerns of Undue Federal Intrusion into Redistricting
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.
Summary: This brief, filed by Wisconsin’s Senate and State Assembly, argues that partisan-gerrymandering claims would complicate redistricting still further and authorize a wave of intrusive litigation targeting states’ redistricting processes. Amici further contend that Appellees’ theory of the case relies on several flawed assumptions about representative democracy, chief among them a belief that the Constitution guarantees proportional representation. Finally, the brief asserts that the Appellees’ standard is not politically neutral, but would instead systematically favor Democrats. The law firms of Kirkland & Ellis and Bell Giftos St. John are co-counsel for this brief.
Summary: This brief, filed by the American Civil Rights Union and the Public Interest Legal Foundation, argues that a constitutional cause of action for partisan gerrymandering would improperly invite federal intrusion into the states’ constitutionally-guaranteed power over their own elections. The Public Interest Law Foundation is counsel for this brief.