Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Answering The Political Question: Demonstrating An Intent-Based Framework For Partisan Gerrymandering, Kyle H. Keraga
Answering The Political Question: Demonstrating An Intent-Based Framework For Partisan Gerrymandering, Kyle H. Keraga
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Partisan gerrymandering is widely recognized as a threat to the foundations of our democracy. Political parties with control over their state legislatures routinely leverage the redistricting process to entrench themselves in power—suppressing political adversaries, chilling public participation, and polarizing the electorate. Nevertheless, despite a persistent recognition that partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with basic democratic principles, the Supreme Court struggled to develop a stable and consistent doctrinal approach to this issue, even as reliable standards emerged to adjudicate malapportionment and racial gerrymandering claims. Recently, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court abandoned the search entirely, holding that partisan gerrymandering is …
Not Gill-Ty: Challenging And Providing A Workable Alternative To The Supreme Court's Gerrymandering Standing Analysis In Gill V. Whitford, Colin Neal
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
The Gerrymander And The Constitution: Two Avenues Of Analysis And The Quest For A Durable Precedent, Edward B. Foley
The Gerrymander And The Constitution: Two Avenues Of Analysis And The Quest For A Durable Precedent, Edward B. Foley
William & Mary Law Review
It has been notoriously difficult for the United States Supreme Court to develop a judicially manageable—and publicly comprehensible—standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, a standard comparable in this respect to the extraordinarily successful “one person, one vote” principle articulated in the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. This difficulty persists because the quest has been for a gerrymandering standard that is universalistic in the same way that “one person, one vote” is: derived from abstract ideas of political theory, like the equal right of citizens to participate in electoral politics. But other domains of constitutional law employ particularistic modes of reasoning …
Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji
Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Tempest In An Empty Teapot: Why The Constitution Does Not Regulate Gerrymandering, Larry Alexander, Saikrishna B. Prakash
Tempest In An Empty Teapot: Why The Constitution Does Not Regulate Gerrymandering, Larry Alexander, Saikrishna B. Prakash
William & Mary Law Review
Judges and scholars are convinced that the Constitution forbids gerrymandering that goes "too far"--legislative redistrictings that are too partisan, too focused on race, etc. Gerrymanders are said to be unconstitutional for many reasons-they dilute votes, they are anti-democratic, and they generate uncompetitive elections won by extremist candidates. Judges and scholars cite numerous clauses that gerrymanders supposedly violate- the Equal Protection Clause, the Guarantee Clause, and even the First Amendment. We dissent from this orthodoxy. Most of these claims rest on the notion that the Constitution establishes certain ideals about representation in legislatures and about the outcome and conduct of elections. …