Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:49 PM Mar 2015

Huffpo: This Supreme Court Case Could Make Elections Even More Undemocratic

This Supreme Court Case Could Make Elections Even More Undemocratic
3/1/2015

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a reversal of the usual worries about political influence on electoral map-making, the Supreme Court is being asked to let raw politics play an even bigger role in the drawing of congressional district boundaries.

The court hears argument Monday in an appeal by Republican lawmakers in Arizona against the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission for creating the districts of U.S. House members. A decision striking down the commission probably would doom a similar system in neighboring California, and could affect districting commissions in 11 other states.

The court previously has closed the door to lawsuits challenging excessive partisanship in redistricting, or gerrymandering. A gerrymandered district is intentionally drawn, and sometimes oddly shaped, to favor one political party.

Independent commissions such as Arizona's "may be the only meaningful check" left to states that want to foster more competitive elections, reduce political polarization and bring fresh faces into the political process, the Obama administration said....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/01/supreme-court-gerrymandering_n_6778474.html
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Huffpo: This Supreme Court Case Could Make Elections Even More Undemocratic (Original Post) RiverLover Mar 2015 OP
I would argue that re-districting to give one party an advantage violates the "one man, one vote" merrily Mar 2015 #1

merrily

(45,251 posts)
1. I would argue that re-districting to give one party an advantage violates the "one man, one vote"
Sun Mar 1, 2015, 05:33 PM
Mar 2015

rule.


"One man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote&quot is a slogan that has been used in many parts of the world where campaigns have arisen for universal suffrage. During the 20th-century period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty, from the late 1940s onwards this phrase became widely used in less developed countries where majority populations were seeking to gain political power in proportion to their numbers.

The phrase was used in this form in an important legal ruling in the United States related to voting rights; applying the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court majority opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) ruled that state legislatures needed to redistrict in order to have congressional districts with roughly equal represented populations. In addition, the court ruled that both houses of state legislatures needed to have representation based on districts containing roughly equal populations, with redistricting as needed after censuses.[1] Many urban areas of the United States had been long underrepresented in Congress and state legislatures due to the failure of the latter to redistrict according to population.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Huffpo: This Supreme Cour...