1 / 17

Redistricting II:

Redistricting II:. Law & precedents. Background. One man one vote Baker v. Carr (1963). The Constitution. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed

piper
Download Presentation

Redistricting II:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Redistricting II: Law & precedents

  2. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963)

  3. The Constitution • Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed • Article I Section II as modified by the 14th amendment • The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative… • Article I section II

  4. 14th amendment • “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  5. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

  6. Wesberry v. Sanders • “A single Congressman represents from two to three times as many Fifth District voters as are represented by each of the Congressmen from the other Georgia congressional districts. The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution intends that, when qualified voters elect members of Congress, each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then this statute cannot stand….We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, § 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.”

  7. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2

  8. Section 2 • Applies everywhere • “Based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election…are not equally open to participation by members of (a protected group) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected…is one circumstance that may be considered: Provided that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

  9. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2

  10. If you were on the Supreme Court: When would you judge it okay to use race as a criteria in line drawing? When would that NOT be okay? When would you judge it okay to use political affiliation as a criteria in line drawing? When would that NOT be okay?

  11. Terminology • What is vote dilution? • Why might it be a bad thing?

  12. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2 • Section 5 • Racial gerrymandering • Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) • Section 2 will be enforced when there is vote dilution: • Minority group is large enough to constitute a majority • Group is politically cohesive • Whites vote in a block to defeat minority’s preferred candidate

  13. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2 • Section 5 • Racial gerrymandering • Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) • Shaw v. Reno (1993)

  14. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2 • Section 5 • Racial gerrymandering • Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) • Shaw v. Reno (1993) • Miller v. Johnson (1995) • Georgia district drawn so bizarrely that it violates the equal protection clause

  15. Background • One man one vote • Baker v. Carr (1963) • Wesberry v. Sanders • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Section 2 • Section 5 • Racial gerrymandering • Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) • Shaw v. Reno (1993) • Miller v. Johnson (1995) • Shaw v. Hunt (1996)

  16. Shaw v. Hunt • Plaintiff’s burden is to show race is justified to draw lines because of compelling state interest: • Remedying past discrimination • Complying with Section 2 of VRA • Complying with Section 5 of VRA

  17. Partisan Gerrymandering • Davis v. Bandemer (1986) • Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer (2004) • League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) • Legality of de facto dilution of minority votes • Legality of mid-decade redistricting • Legality of partisan gerrymanders

More Related