Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word's acceptance was marked by its publication in a dictionary (1848) and in an encyclopedia (1868). [14] Since the eponymous Gerry is pronounced with a hard g /ɡ/ as in get , the word gerrymander was originally pronounced / ˈ ɡ ɛr i m æ n d ər / , but pronunciation as / ˈ dʒ ɛr i m æ n ...
Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be ...
The Supreme Court revisited the concept of partisan gerrymandering claims in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). [28] While the Court upheld that partisan gerrymandering could be justiciable, the justices were divided in this specific case as no clear standard against which to evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims emerged.
This was the result of gerrymandering – the practice of drawing districts in a way that maximizes the seats of one party or another. The practice was named after Elbridge Gerry, a vice president ...
The efficiency gap was first devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. [3] The metric has notably been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another.
Common Cause, in which the majority determined that the federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan gerrymandering, “Election Day . . . is the foundation of democratic governance. And partisan ...
Ohioans don't like gerrymandering, which is why both sides of the Issue 1 debate say they have a solution for it.
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.