Consolidating districts in nd
In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ...Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny.In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v.Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable." The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict.The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion.This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016.The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections.
In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of October 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering.At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas.The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes.The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups.Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts.