dismissing partisan gerrymandering action because the plaintiffs did "not allege, nor c[ould] they, that the state's redistricting plan ... caused them to be 'shut out of the political process' " or that they had "been or w[ould] be consistently degraded in their participation in the entire political process"
How later courts described this case
- dismissing partisan gerrymandering action because the plaintiffs did "not allege, nor c[ould] they, that the state's redistricting plan ... caused them to be 'shut out of the political process' " or that they had "been or w[ould] be consistently degraded in their participation in the entire political process"
- the party which was allegedly discriminated against had not been shut out of the political process where it was virtually guaranteed to win some seats.
- "[The Bandemer ] plurality opinion must be considered controlling as the position which concurs in the judgment on the narrowest grounds."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
POTTER, District Judge,
dissenting.
I believe the complaint filed by the Plaintiffs contains sufficient allegations of both discriminatory intent and effect to withstand the Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. I would allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to put on their evidence. As such, I respectfully dissent.