Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Partisan Gerrymandering and the U.S Supreme Court - What is the Problem Represented to be?

Björklund Claesson, Maximilian LU (2020) STVK02 20201
Department of Political Science
Abstract
A verdict in 2019 from the U.S Supreme Court that resulted in the withdrawal of the power of lower federal courts to judge in cases of partisan gerrymandering was a contested and debated one, both inside and outside the courtroom. Two different blocs out of the nine judges could be seen in the vote, one that voted for and one that voted against this decision, with the former bloc winning five to four. Through the theoretical framework of Max Weber and legitimacy, and the methodological discourse approach given by Carol Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be?’, the two most recent cases of partisan gerrymandering brought before the court, Rucho v. Common Cause and Gill v. Whitford, gets analyzed as to reveal potential differences... (More)
A verdict in 2019 from the U.S Supreme Court that resulted in the withdrawal of the power of lower federal courts to judge in cases of partisan gerrymandering was a contested and debated one, both inside and outside the courtroom. Two different blocs out of the nine judges could be seen in the vote, one that voted for and one that voted against this decision, with the former bloc winning five to four. Through the theoretical framework of Max Weber and legitimacy, and the methodological discourse approach given by Carol Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be?’, the two most recent cases of partisan gerrymandering brought before the court, Rucho v. Common Cause and Gill v. Whitford, gets analyzed as to reveal potential differences between the judges representation of the problem with partisan gerrymandering. The results show that although the different blocs both conceive partisan gerrymandering as problematic, they differ too what degree and how the potential solution best manifest itself. The language used frames the problem in different context within the two blocs, and in different levels of the practice as a democratic threat. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Björklund Claesson, Maximilian LU
supervisor
organization
course
STVK02 20201
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Partisan Gerrymandering, U.S Supreme Court, Bacchi, Gill v. Whitford, Rucho v. Common Cause
language
English
id
9009543
date added to LUP
2020-09-21 15:40:31
date last changed
2020-09-21 15:40:31
@misc{9009543,
  abstract     = {{A verdict in 2019 from the U.S Supreme Court that resulted in the withdrawal of the power of lower federal courts to judge in cases of partisan gerrymandering was a contested and debated one, both inside and outside the courtroom. Two different blocs out of the nine judges could be seen in the vote, one that voted for and one that voted against this decision, with the former bloc winning five to four. Through the theoretical framework of Max Weber and legitimacy, and the methodological discourse approach given by Carol Bacchi’s ‘What is the problem represented to be?’, the two most recent cases of partisan gerrymandering brought before the court, Rucho v. Common Cause and Gill v. Whitford, gets analyzed as to reveal potential differences between the judges representation of the problem with partisan gerrymandering. The results show that although the different blocs both conceive partisan gerrymandering as problematic, they differ too what degree and how the potential solution best manifest itself. The language used frames the problem in different context within the two blocs, and in different levels of the practice as a democratic threat.}},
  author       = {{Björklund Claesson, Maximilian}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Partisan Gerrymandering and the U.S Supreme Court - What is the Problem Represented to be?}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}