On this fortieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s establishment of the one-person, one-vote rule, it seems a fitting time to evaluate the entire enterprise of judicial involvement in redistricting.  This chapter attempts to identify consistent themes or tensions in the caselaw in order to bring to the surface the subterranean pressures in the jurisprudence that find periodic expression in Supreme Court opinions.  By reconceptualizing redistricting caselaw along these different dimensions, the first part of this paper takes a step back from the doctrinal debates to try to array the many decisions in this area along three principal dimensions:  rules versus standards, activism versus restraint, and individual versus group rights.  In the second part, I briefly discuss each subset of redistricting caselaw and describe what I think are relatively agreed-upon consequences that have resulted from the courts’ involvement in redistricting.  I pay particular attention to the following well-documented effects: the effect on representation of certain groups (opposition parties, urban and suburban voters, racial minorities), the effect on intradistrict competition and competition for control of state legislatures, and the effect on the racialization of partisan conflicts.