Right To Vote And Gerrymandering

Front 1

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Back 1

SC struck down law imposing a poll tax as precondition to voting in state election. SC held that for purposes of EP Voting is a fundamental interest, and raises the standard of review thus narrow tailoring and less restrictive alternative are required.

Front 2

Crawford v. Marion

Back 2

SC upheld law requiring voter identification. Stevens wrote the plurality. Under Harper "evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity of the electoral process are not invidious." Preventing voter fraud is a compelling state interest, but a burden on a fundamental right. Stevens balanced the interests. The Court did not apply SS-because it said that discrimination requires intent--this was a facially neutral law. SC explicitly said that the SC rejects a facial challenge to the law, but there is the possibility of an applied challenge where it can be shown that the operation of the law unduly burdens the right to vote. Scalia argued that RB should apply, no balancing test. Souter argued that the state may not burden a fundamental interest by invoking an abstract interest--voter fraud.

Front 3

Gerrymandering Practices

Back 3

Packing: you take a couple districts that vote democratic, you pack as manydemocrats as possible into a district and concede that district. Cracking: take one district that is predominantlydemocrat, split them into two and win both districts because democrats will besplit and now the minority in each district.

Front 4

Davis v. Bandemer

Back 4

Issue is at what point does gerrymandering violates EP. The SC said that in order to prove EP violation you need to show both intentional discrimination, and actual discriminatory effect. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional only where the electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters in their opportunity to influence the political process.

Front 5

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Back 5

Kennedy. SC dismissed gerrymandering case based being non justiciable. However, Kennedy said that standards could be developed in the future. The Perry case in Texas was also dismissed as nonjusticiable and Kennedy said that no evidence of voter dilution was shown. So maybe a case where voter dilution is shown as part of the gerrymandering might be justiciable.

Front 6

Shaw v. Reno

Back 6

O'Connor. Racial discrimination is suspect and SS applies. But intent is required (Washington v Davis) if facially neutral. Thus use of race in drawing districts is permissible only if government can show compelling state interest. Principle of case is that you can take race into account in a significant way, but it cannot be the predominant factor. Here the court said that the gerrymandering was so irregular that reapportionment can only be seen as effort to segregate.