Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the past, federal courts have deemed extreme cases of gerrymandering to be unconstitutional, but have struggled with how to define the types of gerrymandering and the standards that should be used to determine which redistricting maps are unconstitutional. In 1995 the Supreme Court came to a 5–4 decision during Miller v.
A gerrymandered congressional district, the 11th CD of CA, drawn to favor Republican Richard Pombo.While the Danville area is a traditional Republican stronghold, Morgan Hill is not, and it was added to obtain the proper population numbers for the 11th after Livermore was assigned to the 10th at the behest of the incumbent Democrat, since it contains the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...
In California, candidates for public office could gain access to the general ballot by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, voter-approved Proposition 198 changed California's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party ...
People need to have confidence in government. And one thing that hurts public confidence is gerrymandering.” Agreed. But gerrymandering is still a redistricting tool — just for a different ...
The term gerrymandering is a portmanteau of a salamander and Elbridge Gerry, [a] [5] Vice President of the United States at the time of his death, who, as governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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.
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other ...