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.
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.
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.
Tight electoral margins might be thought to foster centrism. In reality, partisan power grabs are incentivized.
Most states draw new lines by passing a law the same way any other law is passed, but some states have special procedures. [11] Connecticut and Maine require a two-thirds super-majority in each house of the state legislature for redistricting plans, while district lines are not subject to gubernatorial veto in Connecticut and North Carolina. [11]
Gerrymandering is unfair. The new statehouse map protects a Republican supermajority, which diminishes cross-aisle governing. Opinion: Gerrymandering is destroying North Carolina politics
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. [1] After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner to create a "majority-minority" Black district.
The court's ruling on April 18, 2001, stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering. (Case No. 99-1864). The issue facing this Supreme Court case was Constitutional validity of the Congressional Districts in North Carolina.