Get Premium for free!
Malapportionment and Gerrymandering
6 months ago
Davis v. Bandemer The Supreme Court argued that Gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause. They couldn't agree on what was the Constitutional legal standard that Gerrymandering was to be evaluated by, so they just let it be.
Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin A lower court struck down a new plan that redirected partisan gerrymandering. The RPNC complained about the legality of gerrymandering, as it was "intended to deprive members -- of rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment -- and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment --."
Vieth v. Jubelirer The argument was that the Republican- controlled Pennsylvania General Assembly had unconstitutionally gerrymandered the districts for the election of congressional representatives. They claimed that it violated their 1st Article of the Constitution and 14th Amendment rights. They ended up ruling that political Gerrymandering was not unconstitutional.
Gill v. Whitford The Supreme Court was unable to deem how extreme Gerrymandering could be unconstitutional, so they left the decision up to the lower courts to decide. Wisconsin appealed to the Supreme Court ruling, so a ruling is expected to be delivered by 2018.
Reynolds v. Sims This case decided how many senators were going to be in each electoral district. They determined that they were going to have a ratio of 1081 Americans: 1 elector.
Share on Google+
Share on Facebook
Submit to Reddit
Share on LinkedIn
Post to Tumblr