The Voting Rights Act can be a strong protection against racial discrimination — but Republicans can still use partisan gerrymandering to effectively disenfranchise Black and brown voters in their states.
Courts have played a critical role in redistricting over the past few decades, helping to ensure that districts are fair and representative. We break down some of the most crucial redistricting cases in our nation’s history.
Soon, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its detailed results from the 2020 census. The long-awaited data will have huge ramifications for redistricting, voting rights and currently pending court cases.
Redistricting can be a fraught process often leveraged by Republicans to pass unfair and unconstitutional maps, and some of the best protection voters have against disenfranchisement is through the courts.
There’s something big looming on the horizon: redistricting. The U.S. Census Bureau will release its full data later this month, giving lawmakers the details they need about their state’s population changes to draw new maps.
Cooper v. Harris, and the extensive litigation that followed it, exemplifies the duality of federal gerrymandering lawsuits: racial and partisan gerrymandering. The courts have treated these types of cases very differently.
We’re looking back at a 2020 study that dove into the impact of redistricting on the partisan seat share in the U.S. House over the last 50 years — and how Republicans have manipulated the redistricting process for their own benefit.
The census is important for a number of reasons, but today we’re going to talk about one of its biggest uses: redistricting, or the redrawing of district lines to fairly distribute representation in government to voters.
Undercounting, the most likely shortfall of census collection efforts, is most likely to exclude children, people of color, working class folks and renters — and thus dilute their political power.
Page 6 of 6