Briefs Asserting the Constitutionality of Partisan 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.
Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia in Support of Appellants
Summary: This brief, filed by a coalition of sixteen states, argues that legislative redistricting is inherently partisan, and that there is nothing unconstitutionally invidious about reapportionment undertaken with partisan purposes. Further, the states assert that the district court’s standard in this case is unmanageable, as it fails to distinguish between permissible and impermissible partisan purpose and effect. Scott A. Keller, the Solicitor General of Texas, is counsel of record for this brief.
Summary: This brief, filed by the Republican State Leadership Committee, argues that the Appellees have not and likely cannot demonstrate any violation of any established First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment standards. The RSLC and the law firm Baker & Hostetler are co-counsel for this brief.