In 2004, the Supreme Court decided a case involving gerrymandering in Pennsylvania. While the justices voted 9-0 that the gerrymandering in that case was illegal, they all said different things about it. One of the opinions declared that dividing a state for election purposes could be done; however, Mr. Justice Kennedy said, “’Race is an impermissible classification . . . Politics is quite a different matter . . . If, however, a state passed an enactment that declared, “All future apportionment shall be drawn so as most to burden Party X’s rights to fair and effective representation,” he wrote, “we would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated”’” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZC.html).
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, then you already have an online account. Please log in below to access this article.
If you are a current print subscriber, your subscription includes full access to our website. Please use your online account information to log in below to access this article. If you haven’t already, you can set up a free online account by by clicking here.
Click here if you need to reset your password.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |