American Government Ch.9

Cracking and Packing

*Cracking* involves spreading out voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a large voting bloc in any particular district. *Packing* is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts.

Apportionment

- allocation of seats among territorial units in a legislative body

Reapportionment

- reallocation of seats within the House of Representatives among the 50 states following a census (House=435 seats) average district 710,00 people

What is the significance of the following landmark SCOTUS cases?

A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.

What is a majority-minority district?

A majority-minority district is one in which a racial or ethnic minority makes up a large-enough share of the electorate to assure that the community has a reasonable chance to elect the candidate of their choice.

When and how frequently does redistricting occur?

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. Redistricting is the process of redrawing district boundaries when a state has more representatives than districts. Redistricting occurs every ten years, with the national census. If it needs to be changed

What body is responsible for drawing (or redrawing) the lines that divide a state into legislative districts, including U.S. congressional districts?

Different people are in charge of drawing the district lines in different states. In most states, the state legislature has primary control of the redistricting process, both for state legislative districts and for congressional districts.

partisan gerrymandering

Elected officials from one party draw district lines that benefit candidates from their party and hurt candidates from other parties

Gill v. Whitford (2017)

In 2010, for the first time in over forty years, Wisconsin voters elected a Republican majority in the state assembly and the senate, and a Republican governor. As a result, the Republican leadership developed a voting district map that its drafters calculated would allow Republicans to maintain a majority under any likely voting scenario. The redistricting plan was introduced in July 2011, and both the senate and the assembly passed the bill shortly thereafter. The governor signed the bill into law in August 2011. Even before it was enacted, the plan faced two legal challenges, on constitutional and statutory grounds. A federal court upheld the plan as not violating the "one person one vote" principle nor violating the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs in this case challenge the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. At issue is whether the plan systematically dilutes the voting strength of Democratic voters statewide.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts.

What are the origins of the term Gerrymandering?

Named for Gov. Elbridge Gerry of MA

Benisek v. Lamone

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on November 5, 2013 challenging the congressional redistricting plan enacted by the Maryland General Assembly following the 2010 Census. In the complaint, plaintiffs claimed the district plan was a partisan gerrymander which violated the right to representation guaranteed by Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and the First Amendment's protection of political association.

Who is responsible for drawing the lines?

State Legislature

Who does it?

State legislature

Miller v. Johnson (1995)

States cannot draw congressional districts in which race is the primary consideration.

Thornberg v. Gingles (1986)

The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state's Senate and House of Representatives. Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing. They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a "discriminatory effect" and required no "discriminatory purpose." Considering the "totality of circumstances" of the redistricting plan, the District Court ruled that six of the new districts violated the newly amended Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of the black vote. The North Carolina Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court.

Davis v. Bandemer

The case was brought by a group of Indiana Democrats who alleged that the apportionment of Indiana's state legislature diluted the impact of Democratic votes in key districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On June 30, 1986, the high court ruled that Indiana's district plans did not constitute an illegal partisan gerrymander. The court did, however, maintain that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause (i.e., that federal courts have the right to intervene in such matters).[1]

Redistricting

The drawing of new electoral district boundary lines in response to population changes.

Redistricting-

The redrawing of legislative districts' geographical boundaries occurring after a census

Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)

The ruling was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality decision by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional.

When does Redistricting occur?

after census, may not have to be redrawn

Partisan (or political) gerrymandering is the

drawing of electoral district lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party. Partisan gerrymandering challenges to redistricting plans, like racial bias challenges, allege violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Until the Supreme Court's

Malapportionment

drawing the boundaries of legislative districts so that they are unequal in population

Incumbent Gerrymandering-

is the redrawing of boundaries in a bipartisan manner, in order to benefit incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

Gerrymandering

the drawing of district lines for partisan electoral advantage

What constraint did the Court's decisions in these cases impose on the redistricting process

the lines have to be drawn so it doesn't give anyone unfair advantage Ex: majority/Minority, the incumbent, partisan either party.

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964),

was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving U.S. Congressional districts in the state of Georgia. The Court issued its ruling on February 17, 1964. This decision requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. ___ (2015),

was a United States Supreme Court case wherein the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962),

was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that reapportionment issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases.