Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Commonwealth—was a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on gerrymandering, concerning the power of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to draw maps based on partisan advantage. The Court ruled that the maps adopted by the Republican controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the Constitution of ...
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. ...
Bandemer (1986) that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause and is a justiciable matter. However, in its decision, the Court could not agree on the appropriate constitutional standard against which legal claims of partisan gerrymandering should be evaluated.
The U.S. Supreme Court may be on the verge of making it even harder to win legal challenges accusing state officials of racial gerrymandering - the illegal manipulation of an electoral district's ...
In Ohio, Utah, and New Mexico, the dominant party — in the first two cases Republicans, and in the latter, Democrats — simply ignored their commission’s work and drew a gerrymander.
Non-partisan; majority rules 5 Board consists of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and two people selected by the legislative leaders of each major political party. Ohio Constitution Article XI, § 1 [17] Pennsylvania: Legislative districts Bipartisan; majority rules 5 Majority and minority leaders of the legislative houses each select ...
For Democrats to take the House would be like drawing an inside straight from a rigged deck.
Gerrymandering's primary goals are to maximize the effect of supporters' votes and minimize the effect of opponents' votes. A partisan gerrymander's main purpose is to influence not only the districting statute but the entire corpus of legislative decisions enacted in its path. [20] These can be accomplished in a number of ways: [21]