Browsing: redistricting

Important Partisan redistricting is often frustrating. But engaging in politics doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, von Spakovsky writes. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)
Redistricting; reapportionment, we can’t call the whole thing off

If you sometimes are befuddled by the intersection of the census, redistricting and reapportionment—what each means, how they all talk to each other—don’t feel bad; it is confusing. This article uses Pennsylvania as a demonstration of what census numbers mean for redistricting (“how areas will be divided into districts based on the number of seats a state has”) and reapportionment (“the process of deciding how many seats a state will have in the House of Representatives based on changes in population.”) Things that don’t need explanation: census collection will be infiltrated by liberal activists looking to skew Congressional districts in their favor.

Important Partisan redistricting is often frustrating. But engaging in politics doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, von Spakovsky writes. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)
Opinion: Engaging in politics doesn’t violate the Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court got it exactly right this past week in Chatfield v. League of Women Voters when it summarily dismissed a lower court ruling that the Michigan Legislature had violated the Constitution when it drew congressional and state legislative districts that the league and individual Democratic voters claimed favored the Republican Party. Read the 12/27/2019 article at The Detroit News.

Press Releases
The ACRU Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Critical Redistricting Case

Civil rights group contends plaintiffs lack standing by failing to meet basic standards for action under the Constitution and voting rights law. Washington, DC.  The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), joined by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, has filed an amicus brief in favor of the defendants in the North Carolina redistricting case, Rucho v. Common Cause, to be heard by the Supreme Court on March 26. The ACRU strongly disputes the claim that the 2010 North Carolina redistricting plan is unconstitutional after the plaintiffs, Common Cause and a number of North Carolina Democrats, contested its legality. “The text of the First Amendment says nothing about voting,” argues the brief against the complaint that the redistricting map, drawn by duly elected majority Republican members of the North Carolina House Redistricting Committee, is unconstitutional. Other Amendments do protect voting against discrimination because of race, gender, age, or poll taxes, none of which are affected by political gerrymandering. “The North Carolina district court that upheld the claims of the plaintiffs was wrong on all counts,” claims attorney John J. Park on behalf of the ACRU. “Established law, federal and state, is clear that redistricting is the responsibility of the legislative branch, and an incursion…

1 2 3 17