Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were justiciable, but failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The case is the latest in a string of redistricting cases making their way through the federal courts following the 2020 census. New Racial Gerrymandering Case Before Supreme Court, Months After ...
In the Supreme Court case of Karcher v. Daggett (1983), [84] a New Jersey redistricting plan was overturned when it was found to be unconstitutional by violating the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. Despite the state claiming its unequal redistricting was done to preserve minority voting power, the court found no evidence to ...