passed an enactment that declared ‘AH future, apportionment shall be drawn so as -most to burden Party X’s. rights to fair, and effective representation, though still in accord with one-person, one-vote principles,’ we would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated.”); id. at 326, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“State action that discriminates against .a political minority for the sole and unadorned purpose of maximizing the power, of the majority plainly violates the decisionmaker’s duty to remain impartial”); id. at 345, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (Souter, J., dissenting) (“[T]he increasing efficiency of partisan redistricting has damaged the democratic process to a degree that our predecessors only began to imagine.”); id. at 360, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). On its most fundamental level, partisan
recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review holding that redistricting plan violates constitution if it amounts to an unjustified use of political factors to entrench a minority in power holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied