The biggest immediate concern is a months-long delay in the release of census data due to the coronavirus pandemic. Last week, officials said states would not receive detailed figures until September. As a result, the two states that hold legislative elections in , Virginia and New Jersey, will use their old maps.
Meanwhile, around half of U. Some good government groups are worried the delay could lead to more extreme gerrymandering, since it would leave little time for any legal challenges to make their way through the courts before the elections in November. Another difference this year: Voters in several states, including Colorado, Michigan, New York and Virginia, approved the creation of redistricting commissions designed to lessen partisanship, though they have varying degrees of autonomy.
Those ballot initiatives reflect a growing public awareness of redistricting, as reform groups, particularly on the left, have spent years mobilizing grassroots efforts in response to Republican gerrymandering in The backroom deals that marked redistricting a decade ago may be harder to effectuate in The biggest fights could emerge in four populous Southern states where Republican control over redistricting could yield big gains in Congress — Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina.
A: By creatively dividing districts, partisan gerrymandering can allow a majority party to win more seats than otherwise would be expected based on the total votes cast for its candidates. In some states, gerrymandering has allowed one party to win a majority in a legislative chamber even though the other party got more overall votes.
A: Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. The Associated Press analyzed the elections using one of those tests. It found that Republicans won about 16 more U. House seats than would have been expected based on their average share of the vote in congressional districts across the country.
Sections U. Science Technology Business U. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. The Associated Press. In 24 states, the redistricting process expressly prioritizes keeping communities of interest in a single district.
If that applies, you can testify at public hearings about why your community should be kept intact during the redistricting process. Communities of interest can argue their case using personal testimonies, written descriptions, boundary maps, and more. For more detailed information on affecting the redistricting process, check out these partner resources.
At all levels of advocacy federal, state, and local , it is critical that you work in collaboration with value-aligned partner organizations to be a respectful part of the movement and maximize your collective power. Here are a few partners that you may be interested in connecting with to advocate for fair redistricting in your state:. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Image by Caroline Kavit. Image by Melissa Bender. Image from Herndon-Reston Indivisible. To fight against gerrymandering in your state, you should use this document to: Learn how redistricting works Learn about the policies that make redistricting more fair Work with advocates to push for democracy reform in your state.
How does redistricting work? When are congressional district lines drawn? Who draws the lines? State legislatures: Legislatures draw congressional district lines in 31 states, and state legislature district lines in 30 states. These maps often follow the same legislative process as any other bill in the legislature, meaning they must pass the legislature and, in most states, can be vetoed or signed by the governor.
Independent redistricting commissions: In other states, independent commissions, comprised of people who are not lawmakers or public officials, draw the lines. Political commissions: In some states, maps are drawn by a political appointee commission whose members are selected by lawmakers or party leadership.
In Arkansas, maps are drawn by a commission made up of legislators themselves. Backup commissions: Some states have a backup commission that draws the lines if the legislature is deadlocked. Advisory commissions: In some states, an advisory commission drafts the maps, which are then voted on by the state legislature.
The plans tended to ignore the traditional districting principles used in Georgia in previous decades, such as keeping districts compact, not allowing the use of point contiguity, keeping counties whole, and preserving the cores of prior districts. Davis v. Bandemer , U. Significance: Partisan gerrymandering claims may be brought in federal courts under the Equal Protection Clause.
While a standard for measuring partisan gerrymanders was established, it was so difficult to satisfy that no partisan gerrymander was struck down under the Bandemer discriminatory effects test, which was abandoned in Vieth v. Jubelirer , U. Summary: Democrats in Indiana challenged the legislative redistricting plan, claiming the district lines intentionally discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The court required that, in order to prove partisan discrimination, a plaintiff political group must prove that those drawing a plan had an intent to discriminate against them, and that the plan had a discriminatory effect on them.
The court assumed that a discriminatory intent would not be hard to prove. As Justice Byron White said for the majority, "We think it most likely that whenever a legislature redistricts, those responsible for the legislation will know the likely political composition of the new districts and will have a prediction as to whether a particular district is a safe one for a Democratic or Republican candidate or is a competitive district that either candidate might win.
On the other hand, a discriminatory effect, until at least publication, has been impossible to prove. The court said:. Such a finding of unconstitutionality must be supported by evidence of continued frustration of the will of a majority of the voters or effective denial to a minority of voters of a fair chance to influence the political process. Merely showing that the minority is likely to lose elections held under the plan is not enough.
We cannot presume. Vieth v. Significance: While a plurality of justices in this case held that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable, Justice Anthony Kennedy left the door open for potential future claims under the First Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment as had been cited in Bandemer.
Summary: Between Bandemer and Vieth , nearly 20 years elapsed. During that time, no lower court successfully created a manageable legal standard under which to scrutinize partisan gerrymanders.
The majority of justices in this case held that this particular challenge also failed to prove a violation of the Constitution. Four of the five justices in the majority went further, stating that they believed no such standard existed and that partisan gerrymandering claims should be excluded from federal courts under the political question doctrine. However, the fifth justice in the majority—Kennedy—would not go that far.
In his view, partisan gerrymandering claims might be justiciable, possibly under the First Amendment. If workable standards do emerge to measure these burdens, however, courts should be prepared to order relief.
Because Kennedy did not join the other four justices in the majority on this point, aggrieved parties continue to offer arguments for judicially manageable standards by which alleged political gerrymanders may be reviewed. Rucho v. Common Cause , S. Significance: While state courts, Congress and state legislatures remain free to regulate partisanship in redistricting, claims of excessive partisanship are beyond the capacity of federal courts to resolve.
Summary: Ending the line of partisan gerrymandering cases that began with Davis v. The majority opinion noted that this ruling applied only to federal courts, and that Congress, state legislatures and state courts may be better equipped to handle such questions. This ability to regulate partisanship in redistricting extends to ballot measures that circumvent the traditional legislative process.
Additional Resources. Create Account. Case law since Shaw v. Reno see above has made clear that racial gerrymandering claims are judged on a district-by-district basis. The state could not use its equal-population goal as a factor to be weighed against other factors when redistricting. Rather, equal population is a constitutional mandate that undergirds the entire redistricting process and can neither give way to other mandatory factors nor justify deviating from them.
Asking the wrong question, yielded the wrong answer. This website uses cookies to analyze traffic and for other purposes. You consent to the use of cookies if you use this website.
Continue Our online privacy policy.
0コメント