Knowing where legal complaints arise can tell us something about them and reveal clues about their conditions of origin. In this paper, we examine the geographic origins of litigation challenging the boundaries of electoral districts—an increasingly salient and prominent source of political conflict. We construct an original dataset of all redistricting cases in state and federal courts nationwide, from 1960 to 2019. We show that redistricting litigation surfaces not just in states where there are regions undergoing rapid population change or that have a greater proportion of aggrieved racial minority groups but also in areas where there is close partisan competition. The filing of redistricting litigation is highly responsive to hypercompetitive political environments, suggesting that parties pursue judicial intervention vigorously when political power hangs in the balance and not simply due to demographic changes associated with decennial population measurement. These findings have important implications for understanding the temporal and spatial dynamics of redistricting politics and the consequences of intense partisan electoral competition in the United States.
AtkinsB. M.GlickH. R.1976. “Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Last Resort.” American Journal of Political Science20 (1): 97–115.
2.
BischoffK.2008. “School District Fragmentation and Racial Residential Segregation How Do Boundaries Matter?”Urban Affairs Review44 (2): 182–217.
3.
BlackD. J.1973. “The Mobilization of Law.” The Journal of Legal Studies2 (1): 125–49.
4.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J.2009. “Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” The Journal of Politics71 (3): 1062–75.
5.
BoydC. L.2015. “Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization.” Law & Policy37 (4): 294–323.
6.
BoydC. L.2017. “Gatekeeping and Filtering in Trial Courts.” In The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior, edited by EpsteinLeeLindquistStefanie A., 129–148. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
BraceP.HallM. G.2001. “‘Haves’ versus ‘Have Nots’ in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases.” Law & Society Review35 (2): 393–417.
8.
BraceP.HallM. G.LangerL.2001. “Placing State Supreme Courts in State Politics.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly1 (1): 81–110.
9.
BrunnS. D.ShelleyF. M.WebsterG. R.AhmedW. M.2000. “Place and Region in American Legal Culture: State Origins of Landmark Supreme Court Cases.” Historical Geography28:134–56.
10.
BullockC. S.III. 1981. “Congressional Voting and the Mobilization of a Black Electorate in the South.” The Journal of Politics43 (3): 662–82.
11.
CaldeiraG. A.1985. “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts.” American Political Science Review79 (1): 178–94.
12.
CaldeiraG. A.1988. “Legal Precedent: Communication between State Supreme Courts.” Social Networks10 (1): 29–55.
13.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R.1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82 (4): 1109–27.
14.
CollinsR. K.GalieP. J.KincaidJ.1986. “State High Courts, State Constitutions, and Individual Rights Litigation since 1980: A Judicial Survey.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism16 (3): 141–62.
15.
DavidP. T.EisenbergR.1961. Devaluation of the Urban and Suburban Vote: A Statistical Investigation of Long-Term Trends in State Legislative Representation, vol. 1. Charlottesville: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Virginia.
16.
DumasT. L.2016. “Contextualizing the “Black Box”: State Institutions, Trial Venue, and Civil Jury Verdicts.” Journal of Law and Courts4 (2): 291–312.
17.
DumasT. L.HaynieS. L.2012. “Building an Integrated Model of Trial Court Decision Making: Predicting Plaintiff Success and Awards across Circuits.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly12 (2): 103–26.
18.
EnnsP. K.2014. “The Public’s Increasing Punitiveness and Its Influence on Mass Incarceration in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science58 (4): 857–72.
19.
EnnsP. K.2016. Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
EpsteinL.KnightJ.1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21.
FontanaD.2016. “The Geography of Campaign Finance Law.” Southern California Law Review90:1247–98.
22.
FrisbieW. P.NeidertL.1977. “Inequality and the Relative Size of Minority Populations: A Comparative Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology82 (5): 1007–30.
23.
GoldbergA. L.1962. “The Statistics of Malapportionment.” Yale Law Journal72 (1): 90–106.
24.
GranovetterM.2007. “The Social Construction of Corruption.” In On Capitalism, edited by SwedbergR., 152–74. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25.
GrofmanB.2019. “Tests for Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymandering in a Post-Gill World.” Election Law Journal18 (2): 93–115.
26.
GrofmanB.CervasJ. R.2018. “Can State Courts Cure Partisan Gerrymandering: Lessons from League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2018).” Election Law Journal17 (4): 264–85.
27.
GrossmanJ. B.SaratA.1971. “Political Culture and Judicial Research.” Washington University Law Review1971 (2): 177–207.
28.
GrossmanJ. B.SaratA.1975. “Litigation in the Federal Courts: A Comparative Perspective.” Law & Society Review9 (2): 321–46.
29.
HarrisP.1985. “Ecology and Culture in the Communication of Precedent among State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970.” Law & Society Review19:449–86.
30.
HasenR. L.2004. “Looking for Standards (in All the Wrong Places): Partisan Gerrymandering Claims after Vieth.” Election Law Journal3 (4): 626–42.
31.
HenningK.FederL.2005. “Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence Offenses: An Investigation of Factors Predictive of Court Outcomes.” Criminal Justice and Behavior32 (6): 612–42.
32.
HeydebrandW. V.1976. “The Context of Public Bureaucracies: An Organizational Analysis of Federal District Courts.” Law & Society Review11:759.
33.
HinkleR. K.NelsonM. J.2016. “The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly16 (4): 391–441.
34.
JamesD. R.TaeuberK. E.1985. “Measures of Segregation.” Sociological Methodology15:1–32.
35.
KangM. S.2006. “De-rigging Elections: Direct Democracy and the Future of Redistricting Reform.” Washington University Law Review84:667.
36.
KingR. D.JohnsonK. R.McGeeverK.2010. “Demography of the Legal Profession and Racial Disparities in Sentencing.” Law & Society Review44 (1): 1–32.
37.
KutateladzeB. L.AndiloroN. R.JohnsonB. D.SpohnC. C.2014. “Cumulative Disadvantage: Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Prosecution and Sentencing.” Criminology52 (3): 514–51.
38.
LemosM. H.YoungE. A.2018. “State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization.” Texas Law Review97:43.
39.
LublinD.1999. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
LublinD.HandleyL.BrunellT. L.GrofmanB.2020. “Minority Success in Non-majority Minority Districts: Finding the ‘Sweet Spot.’”Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics5 (2): 275–98.
41.
LynchM., 2011. Mass incarceration, legal change, and locale: Understanding and remediating American penal overindulgence. Criminology & Public Policy, 10: 673.
42.
MarshallH.JiobuR.1975. “Residential Segregation in United States Cities: A Causal Analysis.” Social Forces53 (3): 449–60.
43.
MasseyD. S.2020. “Still the Linchpin: Segregation and Stratification in the USA.” Race and Social Problems12 (1): 1–12.
44.
McConnellM. W.2000. “The Redistricting Cases: Original Mistakes and Current Consequences.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy24:103–18.
45.
McDonaldM. D.BestR. E.2015. “Unfair Partisan Gerrymanders in Politics and Law: A Diagnostic Applied to Six Cases.” Election Law Journal14 (4): 312–30.
46.
NeumanG. L.1987. “Territorial Discrimination, Equal Protection, and Self-Determination.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review135 (2): 261–382.
47.
NisbettR. E.CohenD.1996. Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder: Westview Press.
48.
PerryH. W.Jr.1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
PosnerE. A.SunsteinC. R.2006. “The Law of Other States.” Stanford Law Review59:131.
50.
RheeW.ScottS. C.2018. “Geographic Discrimination: Of Place, Space, Hillbillies, and Home.” West Virginia Law Review121:531.
51.
RushM. E.1995. “From Shaw v. Reno to Miller v. Johnson: Minority Representation and State Compliance with the Voting Rights Act.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism25 (3): 155–72.
52.
RushM. E.2016. “The Current State of Election Law in the United States.” Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice23:383.
53.
SchultheisE. W.2014. “The Social, Geographic, and Organizational Determinants of Access to Civil Legal Aid Services: An Argument for an Integrated Access to Justice Model.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies11 (3): 541–77.
54.
ShermerL. O. N.JohnsonB. D.2010. “Criminal prosecutions: Examining Prosecutorial Discretion and Charge Reductions in US Federal District Courts.” Justice Quarterly27 (3): 394–430.
StephanopoulosN. O.McGheeE. M.2015. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap.” University of Chicago Law Review82:831.
57.
StolerJ.San RomanA.2016. “Where Is Precedent Set? An Exploratory Geovisualization of State Supreme Court Cases.” Journal of Maps12 (2): 334–43.
58.
Tam ChoW. K.LiuY. Y.2016. “Toward a Talismanic Redistricting Tool: A Computational Method for Identifying Extreme Redistricting Plans.” Election Law Journal15 (4): 351–66.
59.
ThomasC. W.CageR. J.FosterS. C.1976. “Public Opinion on Criminal Law and Legal Sanctions: An Examination of Two Conceptual Models.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology67:110–16.
60.
YatesJ.DavisB. C.GlickH. R., 2001. The politics of torts: Explaining litigation rates in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1 (2): 127–143.
61.
YatesJ.TankersleyH.BraceP.2010. “Assessing the Impact of State Judicial Structures on Citizen Litigiousness.” Political Research Quarterly63 (4): 796–810.
62.
YuP. K. 2017. “A Spatial Critique of Intellectual Property Law and Policy.” Washington and Lee Law Review74:2045.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
