US Supreme Court Confronts Partisan Gerrymandering

Stephen Miller, vice chair of Cozen O'Connor's White Collar Defense & Investigations practice, and William Lesser, an associate in the firm's Commercial Litigation department, co-authored for The Legal Intelligencer, "US Supreme Court Confronts Partisan Gerrymandering." Partisan gerrymandering is the configuring of election districts to advantage one political party over the other. The Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of that practice in one of the most highly anticipated cases of the current term. The court will need to determine whether (and how) gerrymandering for partisan reasons, as opposed to racial discrimination or other goals, is regulated by the Constitution. Appellees claim that Act 43 violates the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clauses. By contrast, appellants (state officials) primarily argue that appellees lack standing to bring this claim because they do not reside in all the specific gerrymandered districts, and further that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because there is no workable standard to determine when a district is unconstitutional for being “too partisan.”

To read the full article, click here.

Share Page On LinkedIn

Related Attorneys

William Lesser


(212) 453-3808

Stephen A. Miller

Co-Chair, White Collar Defense & Investigations

(215) 665-4736

Related Practices