Gaffney v. Cummings

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that legislators involved in redistricting decisions inevitably take into account various “political considerations” in drawing district lines
• recognizing that \[p]olitics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment\
• holding that state legislature did not violate Equal Protection Clause by relying on political data \to create a districting plan that would achieve a rough approximation of the statewide political strengths of the Democratic and Republican Parties\
• recognizing that “[p]olitics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment”
• recognizing that “[p]olitics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment”
• holding that numerical deviations from population equality in a Connecticut legislative apportionment plan failed to make out a prima facie violation of the equal protection clause where maximum population deviations for the House and Senate were 7.83% and 1.81%, respectively

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).