Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Alabama Racial Gerrymander Case

Listen: Supreme Court Oral Argument in Alabama Racial Gerrymander Case

  Listen to the Supreme Court's oral arguments in the consolidated cases; Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and  Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama. Democratic lawmakers in the Alabama legislature claim the Republican-led legislature packed Black voters into state legislative districts to dilute their voting power resulting in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court heard oral arguments on November 12th 2014.    
Read More
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Alabama Gerrymander is a Racial or Partisan One.

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Alabama Gerrymander is a Racial or Partisan One.

NPR previews Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama; a claim alleging that the Alabama state legislature's 2010 legislative redistricting map is a racial gerrymander. Alabama says the Voting Rights Act made them create the map. Listen below. http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=363375057&m=363458938&t=audio  
Read More

Redistricting Conundrums, Chicago Style

The Chicago City Council approved a new ward map in 2012 amid the usual accusations and claims of partisan dealing. There were complaints that wards 2 and 36 were vicious gerrymanders and good government groups complained of little transparency during the process. Criticisms like these are typical after any map is enacted since redistricting is by its very nature; a political process. What makes Chicago’s redistricting different? The city council took the extra step of making the new ward map effective “immediately.” Local elections are not scheduled to take place until 2015, but council members implemented a policy making the…
Read More

Arizona Redistricting Trial Focuses on Elusive Proof of Partisan Bias

Paranoia is inherent in redistricting, even when it’s nonpartisan redistricting. A Republican backed legal challenge against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s state legislative map went to trial last week and paranoia tainted every aspect of the case. The Republican plaintiffs pointed to overpopulated GOP districts versus under-populated Democratic districts as a sign that indeed the commission’s tie-breaking, independent chairwoman was actually a Democratic sympathizer, allowing Democrats on the panel to push through map scenarios favorable to their party.   They claim she never disclosed contributions to a Democratic candidate or her husband’s role as a Democratic strategist. The commission on…
Read More