Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Only in one subsequent case, Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin (1992), [1] did a lower court strike down a redistricting plan on partisan gerrymandering grounds. [2]: 783 Instead, the Supreme Court found it easier to rule on racial gerrymanders under existing federal law.
The latest redistricting cycle is set up to be a disaster for democratic fairness. Unlikely as it sounds, there’s a path to fix it.
North Carolina's 4th congressional district encompassed parts of Raleigh, Hillsborough, and the entirety of Chapel Hill. The district was considered to be one of the most gerrymandered districts in North Carolina and the United States as a whole. [117] The district was redrawn in 2017.
Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving the redistricting and racial gerrymandering of North Carolina's 12th congressional district (pictured). The United States, among the first countries with an elected representative government, was the source of the term gerrymander as stated above.
Gerrymandering is unfair. The new statehouse map protects a Republican supermajority, which diminishes cross-aisle governing. Opinion: Gerrymandering is destroying North Carolina politics
Letters to the Editor: Get legislators out of redistricting and ignoring voter mandates by voting 'yes' on Issue 1.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
Ohioans don't like gerrymandering, which is why both sides of the Issue 1 debate say they have a solution for it.