Search for: "Gill v. Whitford"
Results 41 - 60
of 244
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2018, 5:45 am
Whitford and Benisek v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 11:47 am
Gill v. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 3:05 am
Whitford and Benisek v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 10:53 am
Will Gill v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:14 am
In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that “one salvo” in the Democrats’ battle “to stanch the huge redistricting advantage Republicans grabbed after the 2010 census” “is coming to the Supreme Court when the justices reconvene in the autumn: Gill v Whitford, a case challenging Wisconsin’s electoral maps. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 8:14 am
Whitford and Benisek v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a much-watched Wisconsin case, Gill v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 9:45 pm
The Court avoided the issue of partisan gerrymandering yesterday by remanding Gill v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 1:33 pm
Whitford. 1:52 p.m.: Amy Howe analyzed the court’s opinion in Packingham v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:05 pm
The issue continues to rise in visibility with new federal court rulings on the topic, notably in Wisconsin (Whitford v. [read post]
28 Jan 2018, 11:02 am
The most important election law case before the United States Supreme Court this term is Gill v. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 7:09 am
The court dodged this issue in Gill v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 9:59 am
Will make new post.AND: There are no dissents in Gill v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 6:59 am
"There are only 3 cases left from the fall, and they are all big ones: Gill v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 3:05 am
Whitford, on which it’s already heard oral argument [Benisek v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 6:20 am
Whitford. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 9:05 pm
Whitford (Wisconsin) and Benisek v. [read post]
15 May 2017, 4:41 am
Briefly: In The New York Times, Adam Liptak looks at Gill v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 3:01 am
“The justices tackle partisan gerrymandering again: In Plain English” [Amy Howe, SCOTUSBlog, earlier on Gill v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
In Gill v. [read post]
