Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Johnson that racial gerrymandering is a violation of constitutional rights and upheld decisions against redistricting that is purposely devised based on race. Racial gerrymandering effectively maximizes or minimizes the impact of racial minority votes in certain districts with the goal of diluting the minority vote.
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.
Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the legality of redistricting, and possibly gerrymandering, in the state of New Jersey. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Background
Gerrymandering dates back to the 18th century, and damages democracy. But evidence suggests that independent commissions can improve the situation. ... An 1852 redistricting of Indiana, for ...
Most lawmakers representing Ohio voters at the Statehouse in Columbus or Congress in Washington, D.C., run for election in districts. Deciding what these districts look like is called redistricting.
Redistricting in Alabama is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for federal congressional and state legislative districts. It has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts.
And that was the purpose of redistricting reform adopted by voters in 2008. The old gerrymandering had a very bad stench and is still practiced in many states — Texas being an infamous example.
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority-majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.