Political Gerrymandering and the Courts by Bernard Grofman

By Bernard Grofman

"Specialists in election legislations and politics may want to purchase and take in this publication. i do know of no larger survey of the that means and goal of the court docket in Bandemer and the constitutional terrain it has formed for redistricting within the 90s." - The legislation and Politics evaluation

Show description

Read Online or Download Political Gerrymandering and the Courts PDF

Best elections books

Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts

The 2000 Presidential election led to a collision of historical past, legislations, and the courts. It produced a impasse that dragged out the outcome for over a month, and consequences--real and imagined--that promise to tug on for years. within the first in-depth examine of the election and its litigious aftermath, pass judgement on Posner surveys the historical past and concept of yank electoral legislations and perform, analyzes which Presidential candidate ''really'' received the preferred vote in Florida, surveys the litigation that ensued, evaluates the courts, the legal professionals, and the commentators, and ends with a blueprint for reforming our Presidential electoral practices.

Passages to the Presidency: From Campaigning to Governing

Examines the careers of 4 presidents and explores the ways that the political process is altering their position.

Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition

At the present time, electoral authoritarianism represents the commonest kind of political regime within the constructing international - and the single we all know least approximately. Filling within the lacuna, this new publication provides state-of-the-art examine at the inner dynamics of electoral authoritarian regimes. each one concise, jargon-free bankruptcy addresses a selected empirical puzzle at the foundation of cautious cross-national comparability.

Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary

AT STAKE: the way forward for AMERICAThe 2016 election is really America's Armageddon—the final and decisive conflict to save lots of the USA, a struggle to defeat Hillary Clinton and the forces looking to flout our constitutional govt and exchange it with an omnipotent president sponsored up through an activist judiciary that solutions to nobody.

Additional resources for Political Gerrymandering and the Courts

Sample text

I believe that the gap between Justice Powell and Justice Stevens and Justice White’s plurality opinion can easily be exaggerated. As Justice White points out: ”The election results obviously are relevant to a showing of the effects required to a political gerrymandering claim under our view. And the district configurations may be combined with vote projections to predict future election results that are also relevant to the effects showing” (Davis v. Banderner, p. 2815). 20 I believe that there are four features of the Supreme Court plurality opinion that are critical in understanding Justice White’s approach to specifying manageable standards for gerrymandering effects: (1) Justice White’s insistence that Bandemer was a claim that ”the 1981 apportionment discriminates against Democrats on a statewide basis” (Davis v.

Powell’s opinion gave attention to Justice Stevens’ probing discussion in the recent Karcher case of judicially manageable standards for determining political maldistricting and concluded that the evidence in the Indiana case was sufficient to warrant judicial intervention. At the opposite pole, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor denied the availability of such standards that courts could apply without settling for a form of simple proportionality of party representation. She and Chief Justice Warren Burger (in a brief separate opinion) invoked somewhat nostalgically the spirit of the dissents filed in Buker o.

2810, emphasis added). In a paragraph below, this standard is rephrased by Justice White as the requirement that ”a finding of unconstitutionality must be supported by evidence of continued frustration of the will of a majority of Bandemer and Tkornburg 37 the voters or effective denial to a minority of voters of a fair chance to influence the political process” (Davis v. Bandemer, p. 2811, emphasis added). Justice White goes on to say, a few paragraphs further on, that ”a prima facie case of illegal discrimination in reapportionment requires a showing of more than a de minimis effect” (Davisv.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.45 of 5 – based on 43 votes