dismissing partisan gerrymandering claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege any "interfer[ence] with [the allegedly disfavored party's] registration, organizing, voting, fund-raising, or campaigning" or that the interests of supporters of the disfavored party were "being 'entirely ignore[d]' by their congressional representatives" (third alteration in original) (quoting Bandemer , 478 U.S. at 132, 106 S.Ct. 2797 )
How later courts described this case
- dismissing partisan gerrymandering claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege any "interfer[ence] with [the allegedly disfavored party's] registration, organizing, voting, fund-raising, or campaigning" or that the interests of supporters of the disfavored party were "being 'entirely ignore[d]' by their congressional representatives" (third alteration in original) (quoting Bandemer , 478 U.S. at 132, 106 S.Ct. 2797 )
- holding that complaint setting forth repetitive and con-clusory claims failed to satisfy requirement of Bandemer that plaintiff allege exclusion from the political process as a whole
- stating that Bandemer's intent requirement is easily satisfied, and focusing instead on allegations of discriminatory effects
- concerning the state's congressional apportionment scheme but reviewing it to determine only if there had been outside interference in the Republican Party’s internal operations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before POOLE, Circuit Judge, and ZIRPOLI and SCHNACKE, District Judges.