# Badham v. March Fong Eu

> District Court, N.D. California · April 21, 1988 · 694 F. Supp. 664

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690867

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert E. BADHAM, Robert Naylor, Eric Seastrand, Aldo Silvestri, Michael W. Cobb, Frank O. Verlot, Donna S. Richardson, Peter Schrager, Jane Baker, Charles A. Meyer, Kirk Lindsey, Donald Driscoll, Roger T. Erickson, D.D.S., Cynthia Trobitz-Thomas, Wally Herger, Lowell Landowski, Jack Hite, Mike Garza, Dennis McQuaid, Rosemary Thakar, Steve Eigenberg, David Williams, Michael LaCrone, Bob Nash, Norman Shumway, Chip Pashayan, David Crevelt, Robert Lagomarsino, Bill Thomas, Elton Gallegly, Carlos Moorhead, George Woolverton, Jerry Zerg, David Baird, Robert Kerns, Robert Scribner, George Adams, Carl Johnson, John W. Almquist, Jackson M. McMurray, Joyce Robertson, David Dreier, Charles House, Jerry Lewis, Bob Henley, Al McCandless, Robert Dornan, William Dannemeyer, Bob Badham, Bill Lowery, Dan Lungren, Ron Packard, Bill Mitchell, and Duncan Hunter, Plaintiffs, v. MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of State of the State of California, Defendant, Assembly of the State of California; The Members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, DefendantsIntervenors
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 21, 1988
- **Citations:** 694 F. Supp. 664; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15604; 1988 WL 90965
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zirpoli
- **Judges:** Poole, Zirpoli, Schnacke
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690867

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that complaint setting forth repetitive and conclusory 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

## Opinion text

ZIRPOLI, District Judge,
concurring:
I must accept the Supreme Court’s ruling “that political gerrymandering cases may properly be justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.” Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 , 106 S.Ct. 2797 , 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986). Nevertheless, the factors that motivated gerrymandering in the present case are no more reprehensible than those found in Bandemer 1 and do not constitute a threshold showing of discriminatory vote dilution required for a prima facie case of equal protection violation.
. “Mr. Sussman: What were the political factors?
"Mr. Dailey: We wanted to save as many incumbent Republicans as possible.” Bandemer, 106 S.Ct. at 2802, n. 5 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690867. Public record. Not legal advice.