Also known as: legislative apportionments · apportionment · redistricting
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A division of legislative seats or electoral districts among geographic areas or population groups. Challenges to such divisions are justiciable when they allege vote dilution or that race predominated in drawing lines, triggering strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Latoya Lane and other voters sued after the state legislature adopted a new congressional map that combined urban and rural areas, allegedly diluting their votes on key issues. The district court applied the six-factor test and found no political question bar because population equality standards supplied a manageable benchmark. The case proceeded to the merits on the equal protection claim.
Lucy Liu and neighboring residents sued the state after a new legislative map split their county across two districts, causing underrepresentation. The legislature argued the dilution resulted from multiple independent line-drawing choices. The court placed the burden on the state to show the harm could be apportioned among those choices.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Leo Lynch and fellow voters challenged a congressional map that packed minority voters into one oddly shaped district while cracking others. The state claimed traditional principles justified the lines. The court held race predominated and applied strict scrutiny to the apportionment.
Lars Lindstrom and other plaintiffs alleged a statewide legislative map subordinated compactness to racial targets in multiple districts. The court found traditional districting principles were subordinated and required the state to demonstrate narrow tailoring to a compelling interest.
Lena Lawson challenged a legislative map connecting distant minority communities while splitting towns, claiming race predominated over compactness. The court applied strict scrutiny because traditional districting principles were subordinated and found no compelling interest in maximizing majority-minority districts.
Lucas Lee presented evidence that a new legislative map combined several factors to dilute urban votes. The court determined whether the dilution was capable of apportionment among the factors and resolved the causation questions itself because the jury could not reasonably differ.
Challenges are justiciable when none of the six Baker factors is present, including the absence of a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch and the presence of judicially manageable standards such as population equality.
When race is the predominant factor subordinating traditional principles such as compactness and contiguity, the plan is subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest such as remedying past discrimination.
Purely partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions because there are no judicially manageable standards for determining how much partisan advantage is too much.
…the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and…