Talk:Vieth v. Jubelirer

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apartha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Citations are sorely lacking for this article. It would be nice to have references to where in the opinions certain phrases are used given the length of Supreme Court opinions and this case's usage in successive cases at the federal Supreme, federal Circuit, and federal District Court levels. It's something I can commit to working on.

Anpartha (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Article to Include Relevant Information[edit]

I think more information on the background and legacy of this case should be included given the rarity of a gerrymandering case at the Supreme Court level. The judicial importance of this decision hasn't been emphasized in this article, nor its critical role in other gerrymandering cases. This is an improvement I will look into making.

Anpartha (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also think information could be added with regards to the content of dissenting opinions, given that there were three individual dissents. Although they hold no water legally, they are still part of the important fabric of judicial thought regarding gerrymandering.

Anpartha (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to "Legal Arguments" section finished. May add further expansion to explain the influence of the Bandemer case on this one as it was a major topic of discussion during oral arguments.

Anpartha (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]