@booklet {558931,
	title = {Brief of Heather K. Gerken, Jonathan N. Katz, Gary King, Larry J. Sabato, and Samuel S.-H. Wang as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees},
	journal = { Filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in Beverly R. Gill et al. v. William Whitford et al.},
	volume = {16-1161 },
	year = {2017},
	abstract = {SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTPlaintiffs ask this Court to do what it has done many times before. For generations, it has resolved cases involving elections and cases on which elections ride. It has adjudicated controversies that divide the American people and those, like this one, where Americans are largely in agreement. In doing so, the Court has sensibly adhered to its long-standing and circumspect approach: it has announced a workable principle, one that lends itself to a manageable test, while allowing the lower courts to work out the precise contours of that test with time and experience.Partisan symmetry, the principle put forward by the plaintiffs, is just such a workable principle. The standard is highly intuitive, deeply rooted in history, and accepted by virtually all social scientists. Tests for partisan symmetry are reliable, transparent, and easy to calculate without undue reliance on experts or unnecessary judicial intrusion on state redistricting judgments. Under any of these tests, Wisconsin{\textquoteright}s districts cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.},
	author = {Heather K. Gerken and Jonathan N. Katz and Gary King and Larry J. Sabato and Samuel S.-H. Wang}
}
