Redistricting II:

1
Redistricting II

• Law precedents

2
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)

3
The Constitution

• Representatives shall be apportioned among the
  several States according to their respective
  numbers, counting the whole number of persons in
  each State, excluding Indians not taxed
• Article I Section II as modified by the 14th
  amendment
• The actual Enumeration shall be made within three
  Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of
  the United States, and within every subsequent
  Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall
  by Law direct. The Number of Representatives
  shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,
  but each State shall have at Least one
  Representative
• Article I section II

4
14th amendment

• No State shall deny to any person within its
  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

5
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

6
Wesberry v. Sanders

• A single Congressman represents from two to
  three times as many Fifth District voters as are
  represented by each of the Congressmen from the
  other Georgia congressional districts. The
  apportionment statute thus contracts the value of
  some votes and expands that of others. If the
  Federal Constitution intends that, when qualified
  voters elect members of Congress, each vote be
  given as much weight as any other vote, then this
  statute cannot stand.We hold that, construed in
  its historical context, the command of Art. I,
  2 that Representatives be chosen "by the People
  of the several States" means that, as nearly as
  is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional
  election is to be worth as much as another's.

7
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2

8
Section 2

• Applies everywhere
• Based on the totality of circumstances, it is
  shown that the political processes leading to
  nomination or electionare not equally open to
  participation by members of (a protected group)
  in that its members have less opportunity than
  other members of the electorate to participate in
  the political process and to elect
  representatives of their choice. The extent to
  which members of a protected class have been
  electedis one circumstance that may be
  considered Provided that nothing in this section
  establishes a right to have members of a
  protected class elected in numbers equal to their
  proportion in the population.

9
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2

10
If you were on the Supreme Court

• When would you judge it okay to use race as a
  criteria in line drawing? When would that NOT be
  okay?
• When would you judge it okay to use political
  affiliation as a criteria in line drawing? When
  would that NOT be okay?

11
Terminology

• What is vote dilution?
• Why might it be a bad thing?

12
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2
• Section 5
• Racial gerrymandering
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
• Section 2 will be enforced when there is vote
  dilution
• Minority group is large enough to constitute a
  majority
• Group is politically cohesive
• Whites vote in a block to defeat minoritys
  preferred candidate

13
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2
• Section 5
• Racial gerrymandering
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
• Shaw v. Reno (1993)

14
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2
• Section 5
• Racial gerrymandering
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
• Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• Miller v. Johnson (1995)
• Georgia district drawn so bizarrely that it
  violates the equal protection clause

15
Background

• One man one vote
• Baker v. Carr (1963)
• Wesberry v. Sanders
• Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Section 2
• Section 5
• Racial gerrymandering
• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)
• Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• Miller v. Johnson (1995)
• Shaw v. Hunt (1996)

16
Shaw v. Hunt

• Plaintiffs burden is to show race is justified
  to draw lines because of compelling state
  interest
• Remedying past discrimination
• Complying with Section 2 of VRA
• Complying with Section 5 of VRA

17
Partisan Gerrymandering

• Davis v. Bandemer (1986)
• Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer (2004)
• League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
  (2006)
• Legality of de facto dilution of minority votes
• Legality of mid-decade redistricting
• Legality of partisan gerrymanders