Bush v. Vera: Difference between revisions
created bush v. vera (1996) page |
m added part about criticism |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
It was decided that the plans were, indeed, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. In accordance with its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court referred to the irregular shapes of the districts, and the use of race as a factor in drawing them. The Court also stated its concern that ultimately, the planned districts would actually deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral process. This was also in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. |
It was decided that the plans were, indeed, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. In accordance with its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court referred to the irregular shapes of the districts, and the use of race as a factor in drawing them. The Court also stated its concern that ultimately, the planned districts would actually deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral process. This was also in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. |
||
With regards to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to inhibit local African Americans' ability to elect representatives of their choice, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act's "non-retrogression" principle, which prohibited state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice. |
|||
This reasoning has been criticized by a number of scholars for its counter-intuitiveness. Many political academics believe that race-conscious districting actually benefits minorities. |
|||
Decisions |
Decisions |
||
Revision as of 20:32, 5 November 2009
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation.
After the 1990 census, the Texas state legislators planned three additional congressional districts. In response, registered voters challenged the plans as racial gerrymandering. A three-judge federal district court ruled that the plans unconstitutional. The case moved to the Supreme Court on appeal. The issue was whether the Texas redistricting plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It was decided that the plans were, indeed, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. In accordance with its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court referred to the irregular shapes of the districts, and the use of race as a factor in drawing them. The Court also stated its concern that ultimately, the planned districts would actually deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral process. This was also in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
With regards to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to inhibit local African Americans' ability to elect representatives of their choice, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act's "non-retrogression" principle, which prohibited state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice.
This reasoning has been criticized by a number of scholars for its counter-intuitiveness. Many political academics believe that race-conscious districting actually benefits minorities.
Decisions
Decision: 5 votes for Vera, 4 vote(s) against
References and further reading
- Bush v. Vera, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_805