Some suggested using a computer program to draw districts. [81] [82] [83] In this approach, cartographers would choose a redistricting algorithm to draw districts based on a given set of instructions. A computational approach has the potential to prevent gerrymandering by removing human cartographers from the process. [84] The challenge is to agree on a redistricting algorithm. [85] Many of the decisions that go into the design of a redistricting algorithm have predictable political outcomes, so political bias can still play a role in a computational approach. [86] Although Republicans have been the main beneficiaries of gerrymandering over the past decade, Democrats have also used redistribution for partisan political purposes: in Maryland, for example, Democrats have used control over map design to eliminate one of the Republican congressional districts from the state. The Supreme Court adopted the concept of partisan claims of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). [27] Although the Court confirmed that biased electoral boundaries could be justiciable, the judges in this particular case were divided because no clear standard emerged for assessing allegations of biased electoral boundaries. Justice Scalia wrote for plurality, saying that partisan claims of gerrymandering are not justiciable. A majority of the court would still allow partisan gerrymandering claims to be considered justiciable, but those judges had different views on how these claims should be evaluated. [28] Justice Anthony Kennedy, consistent with plurality, proposed that a manageable means could be developed to determine when partisan electoral boundaries took place and urged lower courts to find such means. [25]: 819-821 The Court again confirmed that partisan electoral boundaries may be justiciable in League of United Latin American Citizens v.
Perry (2006). Although the particular case did not support the conclusion that partisan electoral boundaries existed, Justice John Paul Stevens` agreement with plurality added the notion of party symmetry, as the electoral system was supposed to translate votes into representative seats with equal efficiency, regardless of party. [29] The Court stated that “the Equality Safeguard Clause requires that seats in both houses of a bicameral parliament be divided according to population.” Id., p. 568. There is more flexibility for electoral districts than for congressional districts. “Mathematical kindness is not a constitutional requirement” in drafting legislative plans. Id., p. 569. It is only necessary that the maps achieve a “considerable equality of population between the different districts”.
Id., p. 579. Deviations from the equality of the population in legislative plans may be justified if they are “based on legitimate considerations related to the implementation of sound State policies”, such as maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions and providing compact districts of contiguous areas. Id., p. 578. Subsequent cases have defined the counter-attacks of racist electoral boundaries and how these claims relate to the Voting Rights Act. In United States v. Hays (1995),[56] the Supreme Court ruled that only residents of a contested district can lay a charge of racist electoral boundaries. [54]: 623 [56]: 743-744 In Miller v.
Johnson (1995),[57] the Supreme Court has held that a redistribution plan must be subject to rigorous review if the province or territory uses race as the “predominant factor” in determining how district boundaries are to be drawn. The Court defined “supremacy” as meaning that the judiciary accorded racial considerations a higher priority than traditional principles of redistribution such as “compactness, adjacency [and] respect for political divisions or communities defined by genuine common interests.” [54]: 621 [57]: 916 In determining whether racial considerations prevail over traditional principles of redistribution, courts may consider direct and circumstantial evidence of intent of jurisdiction in determining district boundaries, and irregular districts provide strong evidence that jurisdiction was primarily based on race. [25]:869 If a court finds that racial considerations prevail, then a peri-district plan is considered a “racially gerrymaned” plan and must be subject to rigorous review, meaning that the perimeter plan is considered constitutional only if it is closely tailored to the promotion of a higher interest of the state. In Bush v. Vera (1996),[58]: 983 The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, held that compliance with section 2 or section 5 of the Act is an overriding interest, and the lower courts have treated these two interests as the only compelling interests that could justify the creation of racially manipulated districts. [25]: 877 In 2018, four cases of partisan electoral boundaries were brought before the Supreme Court. No one has taken any substantive decisions. In Gill v.
Whitford, No. 16-1161, the court remitted the case so that the plaintiffs could prove that they had standing to bring an action. In Benisek v. Lamone, 17-333, the court refused to issue an injunction on the Maryland congressional map. In Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 17A745, the Court set aside the judgment and remanded it for further consideration in light of Gill v. Whitford.
As for Turzai v. League of Women Voters of Pa, no. 17A.795, Pennsylvania legislators filed a petition for certiorari with the United States. The Supreme Court appealed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court`s decision to accept an appeal card on June 21. Racial composition can be used as a means of creating gerrymander. There is overlap between racial and partisan gerrymandering because minorities tend to favor Democratic candidates; North Carolina`s redistricting in Rucho v. Common Cause was one such case, dealing with both partisan and racial gerrymanders. However, racial gerrymanders can also be created regardless of party boundaries. Meaning: Partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought in federal courts under the Equal Protection Clause. Although a standard was established for measuring partisan gerrymanders, it was so difficult to satisfy that no partisan gerrymander was exempted from Bandemer`s test for discriminatory effects, which was dropped in Vieth v.
Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) (below). Meaning: Partisanship cannot be used to justify a racist gerrymander. In addition, section 2 of the Electoral Act requires that a racial minority be given the opportunity to vote for a “candidate of choice”, not that a certain percentage of minority voters be present in a constituency.
CONTACT US
VN
EN