Evenwel versus Abbott court case was held on April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court was challenged by the registered Texas voters, due to the reason that they think each district should have equal number of population. However the legislature suggested that eligible voters should be used. In other words, each district should have equal number of eligible voters. As a result, the justices have permitted the legislative districts by dominating total population instead of voting population. The Evenwel versus Abbott case is about Texas voters are complaining that their value of votes is being cut out because there are many people who are considered as non-citizens in the state. The Texas voters’ vote counted as half the value of voters …show more content…
The state should use citizen voting age population, so there will be less differential in the voters between different districts. For a long period of time, the Supreme Court doesn’t accept the redistricting claims of political question: is the Constitution guarantees that each day job a republican form of government for a long time. It was all left for the Congress and the states to fix the puzzle. However, Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court decided to hear the claims under the equal protection clause and noticed that one-person, one-vote can arise the equal protection clause of the constitution (Oyez, 1). This comes to a conclusion that the Supreme Court should develop some political philosophy, which enforce all states to follow it. However, it turns out that the supreme court has muddled through the definition of one person, one-vote and how state legislators should be working on at this …show more content…
For example, most of the justices support to protect the minority voters (especially African Americans) after the Civil rights reforms, and also they lowered the voting age from twenty one to eighteen, other than restrictions on felons, the entire adult population is legal to vote. Another case would be Shelby County, where majority of justices agree to protect the minority voter’s rights. Furthermore, the legal model is also best fit in this case because based on the justices’ statement, they refer to the laws as their evidence to support total population. In addition, the Evenwel v. Barrott court case, the liberal justices all favored using population vote in Texas, whereas only two justices were against it. This court case was left behind without an answer, but the Supreme Court will uphold until here is there is a similar court case appears. Also, based on the evidence in the Evewel’s v. Barrott, the societal and legal model are most convincing to explain how the justices made the decision in this
The main purpose of gerrymandering is to increase the number of legislative seats that can be won by the political party which is in charge of redrawing the district boundaries during that period of time, and to create “safe” seats for the party’s incumbent legislators which are seats in which the incumbent will always win re-election. Gerrymandering is the redrawing of election district boundaries to give an electoral advantage to a particular candidate or party. It has been recognized as a part of the American political landscape since 1812. The term derives from a redrawing of US Representative districts in Massachusetts before the 1812 elections, when
If this course has taught us, it is the vital role and the genius of the creation of our judicial system. It has also showed us that was and is not perfect. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was good and effective legislation. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) legally justified according to the Supreme Court of the United States. But what can be frightening s the logic based on numbers. Chief Justice Roberts numerically logic defies realistic application too. Roberts writes in his opinion, “Nearly 50 years later, they are
Our nation's reliance upon winner-take-all elections and single member districts for Congressional elections without national standards has left our voting process open to the abuses of unfair partisan gerrymandering. In the Partisan Gerrymandering simulation game I played, I found that it was more difficult to draw my party lines due to the fact there were many voters that were opposite of my political views. I really had to Gerrymander to win my districts, but I did in the best interests of my constituents (or at least that’s what my created politician would think!). The Court ruling on my plan stated that I did not meet compactness laws but it was still approved. As far as the current laws on gerrymandering, six justices in 2006 produced 123 pages of opinions, without any five of them able to agree on how to define an unconstitutional gerrymander. Politicians of both parties said that the ruling over the 2003 Congressional
The equal protection clause of the Constitution provided George W. Bush with a historical argument that surprisingly fit his case. Not every Floridians ballot was provided with the same protections. There was no statewide vote recount procedure, every county had their own provisions.Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the conflicting manual recount
The state of Texas found out that “no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years ("Hernandez v. Texas.").” Furthermore, the lawyers disputed that it was unfair that they were no Mexican Americans that can support the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court judge denied their motion after listening to their arguments. After listening to this case in the District Court, and the Texas Court of Appeals, this case was now going to be reviewed by the U.S Supreme Court, which was Gus Garcia’s plan. It was expensive to go to trial in the Supreme Court but since every Mexican wanted all these injustices abolished, they were raising money so the lawyers can take the case to Washington (Carlos M.
We can conclude that in order to amend the Texas constitution a proposal must be initiated during a regular session or special session of the legislator. In addition, a unanimous two-thirds vote must be achieved before an election can be held for the people to vote on the amendment. Although citizens voiced their concerns for reform of the constitution during the 1970’s only one reform attempt resulted in an opportunity for the electorate to vote. In the end the constitutional reform did not succeed because of shady tactics, specific individuals, and fear of change. The recent Supreme Court Ruling on gay marriages is an example of why the Texas constitution is to constrict and non-free flowing. Due to the fact that it is so detailed they would not of had the ability to allow gay marriages to be legal without a specific
The United States Supreme Court refused to enter into the political process of redistricting in Colegrove v. Green() stating, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.”() In Baker v. Carr() twenty years later, the Court changed its mind, entering the redistricting arena. Ever since entering the “political thicket,” the Court has continuously failed to find a “judicially discernible and manageable standard” of the legality of gerrymandering. ()
The Constituents entails that illustration in the House of Representatives be assigned to states on the origin of residents. Every single decade, we total the quantity of individuals living in every state and, later making unquestionable that all state acquires one House participant, distribute up the rest. Enormous populace states like California acquire additional House chairs and minor states acquire just the one. A diversity of federal Court cases, however, smeared the fourteenth Amendment’s equivalent safety clause to the procedure of diagram legislative areas occasioning in a prerequisite that every region have unevenly the identical
In the “Point: Abolishing the Electoral College,” Benjamin Bolinger, a licensed lawyer who can practice law in Colorado and Pennsylvania, argues that the Electoral College needs to be abolished for the American democracy. Bolinger examines that some states with a little population have large number of electoral college compare to those states with larger populations. He believes that the Electoral College damages the value of democratic government by leaving
In the past, the Supreme Court took up the matter of gerrymandering to determine its legality (Stankiewicz). Stankiewicz described two instances when he stated the following:
Texas is the only state besides Oklahoma to have a bifurcated appellate court system, with appellate jurisdiction between the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered equal and sometimes overlapping (such as in the case of habeas corpus and mandamus cases). Texas’s Court of Appeals has multiple courts with overlapping jurisdictions; of the 14 Courts, two are in the same city- indeed, they share the same building- with cases randomly assigned to either of the courts. Meanwhile, in East and North Texas, the 6th and 12th Court’s have a total of four counties which overlap. Perhaps most bewilderingly of all is the response of Texas trial courts to population growth. Unlike other states, which assign new judges to a trial court, Texas creates new courts.
Almost two months later after the arrest, the arguments were presented to the three-judge panel of the Texas District Court of Appeals. The discussion was on both issues raised: the equal protection and right to privacy. John Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy ruled in the favour of appellants. They found that they law was in violation of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitutions which prohibited any discrimination based on
Since the beginning of time, the question of whether most of the power should go to the state or federal government has led to a considerable amount of disagreements between political parties, groups, and individuals. Thought, the one that holds most power is not guaranteed to prevent any further debates relating to who is more qualified to guarantee the rights of individuals. For instance, while one individual believes that granting people the right to same-sex marriage advocates victory, others might believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of their own civil rights.
Voters should care about redistricting because it highly concerns them. The city that they are living in could become divided or family members could be in different districts. I believe that there is a problem with our current system on redistricting mainly because us people don’t have a say in it. I think if we got to see what our state legislators were wanting to do in the future, then we would be able to have a say in it. One of the main negative effects of political redistricting is gerrymandering. Being able to just change the districts to keep or change the political power is unfair. They can do this to just be able to win the vote in the end. One positive aspect is all the voters are fairly representative, meaning they all feel like their vote will count (unless gerrymandering is happening). On Ballotpedia on Indiana, we have 9 representatives and 150 state legislators and the state legislators do the redistricting. One reform that is going around the United States is the Electoral system and wanting to change it. I personally do not believe in changing the Electoral College because it’s something we have been using for over 200 years now, and it works. I also believe that the Electoral College is a fair way for elections to happen and it highly relies on our votes. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is when voters rank the following election candidates in their favorable order and decide then who is their best pick. Winner take all is exactly what it means, the winner takes it all in the election. I do not think it is in the public interest for my state to use a commission or a board for redistricting because it comes down to what political party controls the board. For example, if you have a board of 10 people
The Texas constitution is one of the oldest constitutions which was initially adopted in 1876. Since the adoption of the Texas Constitution, the Legislature has proposed 662 amendments. Out of these amendments, the electorate has approved 483 while the voters ' majority has defeated 179. From the many modifications and many more proposals pending or that are yet to come, it is evident that the Texas Constitution is not a perfect one as many other constitutions of individual states. As argued by Maxwell, Crain, and Santos, there is enough evidence to assert that constitutions have several setbacks, and there is no ideal constitution that can serve the interests of all the fifty states or permanently meet the diverse and changing needs of the citizens (Maxwell et.al, 51). Therefore, both the Texas state and the overall U.S. Construction, are not an exception in this context. However, the more the amendments, the more likely unsatisfactory a constitution is to the citizens and thus the reason for the many amendments.