FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/11/2002 10:46:02 AM PDT by galethus
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A good question.
I think the district lines should be where the county lines & city limits are, personally.
That's the way they used to be in NC ... years ago.
What I want to know is how & where the Voting Rights Act is applied, and if it's only in Southern states.
I am down on my knees as I type that maybe there is a God and maybe He even looks over the awful state of Merryland.
Glendenning is the creep of all creeps. He needed to have his head handed to him on a platter.
Hey, I'm seeing a crack in the armor. Even the Dems are not enamored of KKT (and she smells to high heaven) and Earlich might have a shot. I hear Helen Bentley is coming back.
I pray now that somehow, someway, the state of Merryland is returned to the citizens who PAY the horrendous taxes. Pleeze, pleeze, pleeze.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
Section 2
A nationwide provision that prohibits the use of voting laws, practices or procedures that discriminate in either purpose or effect on the basis of race, color, or membership in a minority language group. All types of voting practices and procedures are covered by Section 2, including those relating to registration, voting, candidacy qualification, and types of election systems.
Section 4
Sets forth the formula under which a political jurisdiction is "covered" by and, therefore, subject to the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 4 has various dates that trigger coverage, e.g., if a jurisdiction used a "test or device" such as a literacy test as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50 percent of the age eligible citizens were registered or voted in 1964, it became a covered jurisdiction. Section 4 further covers a jurisdiction if the jurisdiction provided English-Only voter registration/election materials, contained a registered voting age citizenry (or citizens actually voting) of less than 50 percent, and contained a single language minority group of greater than 5 percent of its citizens.
Covered jurisdictions include the entire States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia and counties and towns in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Section 5
This section was designed to prevent states and other governmental entities with a history of voting discrimination from continuing to devise new ways to discriminate after the abolishment of prior discriminatory practices. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions to submit any proposed voting changes in their election law or practices, prior to implementation, for federal approval by either the Attorney General of the United States or the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Covered jurisdictions must demonstrate that the proposed voting changes do not have the purpose or the effect of discriminating against protected racial or language minorities. This process is referred to as the preclearance process.
Minority Language Groups: The minority language groups covered by the Voting Rights Act are Native Americans, Asian Americans, Alaska Natives, and persons of Spanish heritage.
Minority Language Provisions: The Voting Rights Act was amended in 1975 and 1992 to include political jurisdictions with language minority groups and requires such jurisdictions to furnish bi-lingual assistance to language minority citizens at all stages of the voting process and in all elections.
I'm certain that the Court of Appeals can administer the law in a fair and impartial manner in Maryland.
I'm sure all of the Republicans will have their Districts reassigned to the areas where there are the greatest number of Democrats and zero Republican voters.
ANNAPOLIS -- The state Court of Appeals struck down Maryland's legislative redistricting plan today and said it will draw up its own districts for election of the 188 members of the General Assembly.
The problem occurs when the authorized power refuses to act in a legal manner. In this situation the available choices are to draw their own districts, use the illegal new districts, use the now worse former district lines, not have a election and have the old legislators stay in office, or to have the election without districts (ie. all seats running at large). This last choice was used in 1964 when the courts threw out the Illinois Congressional (or was it legislative) districting. The parties were told to nominate at large slates to run against each other, but the party leaders arranged for each party to nominate only 2/3 as many candidates as seats, so that each party could count on 1/3 of the seats, and contested one third (in effect). Since this was 1964, it was lucky for the GOP that they did this, since the Goldwater defeat would have lead to an all Democrat legislative body.
What solution would you choose, or is some other choice available?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.