Post by Logan on Apr 21, 2016 16:32:33 GMT -6
WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court says an Arizona commission did not violate the principle of one person, one vote when it redrew the state's legislative districts in a way that created some with more residents than others and improved the prospects for Democrats.
The justices on Wednesday rejected a challenge from a group of Republican voters who claimed the state's Independent Redistricting Commission illegally packed GOP voters into some districts while leaving other Democratic-leaning districts with smaller populations.
A panel of federal judges upheld the new boundaries in 2014, despite finding that some commission members were trying to improve Democratic prospects in the districts. The judges ruled that the commission was trying to comply with a now-nullified provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Officials with the state's redistricting commission argued that slight differences in population were not enough to violate the Constitution's equal-protection clause.
Read more: www.joplinglobe.com/news/high-court-upholds-arizona-s-legislative-redistricting-plan/article_0be98820-07d2-11e6-bc4c-f37504a49524.html
This was a wise decision from the Supreme Court. The redistricting process draws boundary lines based upon having a rough equivalent number of residents within each district, but that does not mean that there are an equal number of voters in each district. As long as each district does not significantly deviate in the number of residents then it becomes difficult to say that any voter is being disenfranchised from the one person, one vote rule.
The justices on Wednesday rejected a challenge from a group of Republican voters who claimed the state's Independent Redistricting Commission illegally packed GOP voters into some districts while leaving other Democratic-leaning districts with smaller populations.
A panel of federal judges upheld the new boundaries in 2014, despite finding that some commission members were trying to improve Democratic prospects in the districts. The judges ruled that the commission was trying to comply with a now-nullified provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Officials with the state's redistricting commission argued that slight differences in population were not enough to violate the Constitution's equal-protection clause.
Read more: www.joplinglobe.com/news/high-court-upholds-arizona-s-legislative-redistricting-plan/article_0be98820-07d2-11e6-bc4c-f37504a49524.html
This was a wise decision from the Supreme Court. The redistricting process draws boundary lines based upon having a rough equivalent number of residents within each district, but that does not mean that there are an equal number of voters in each district. As long as each district does not significantly deviate in the number of residents then it becomes difficult to say that any voter is being disenfranchised from the one person, one vote rule.