Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (169092)	6/9/2014 2:30:35 PM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

All that case decided was the the Alabama legislature had to make sure that voting districts were in relatively equal size as provided by the Alabama Constitution....it decided nothing about configuration of the districts. It was an exceptional case as you indicated where a legislature basically ignored the express text of its Constituton

To: TideGlider who wrote (169092)	6/9/2014 2:46:13 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	1 Recommendation Recommended By R2O Respond to of 224750

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving U.S. Congressional districts in the state of Georgia. The Court issued its ruling on February 17, 1964. This decision requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population. Nationally, this decision effectively reduced the representation of rural districts in the U.S. Congress. Particularly, the Court held that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so great as to violate the Constitution. In reaching this landmark decision, the Supreme Court asserted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." Wesberry and the Court's later "one person, one vote" decisions had an extraordinary impact on the makeup of the House, on the content of public policy, and on electoral politics in general. However, these "one person, one vote" rules do not prevent and have not prevented gerrymandering. en.wikipedia.org

To: TideGlider who wrote (169092)	6/9/2014 2:53:52 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	1 Recommendation Recommended By gronieel2 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts en.wikipedia.org