3. After the 2000 census, a federal judge drew legislative districts in Texas because Democrats and...

Transcribed Image Text:

3. After the 2000 census, a federal judge drew legislative districts in Texas because Democrats and Republicans could not agree on a map. After gaining power in the elections of 2002, Republicans in the Texas legislature redrew the map in 2003. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and violated the equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting racial minority voting strength. They also believed the mid-decade redistricting was illegal. A three-judge panel ruled that the new map was not unconstitutional, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court as League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). The Court ruled that only one of the new districts, District 23, was drawn in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because under the previous redistricting it was a protected majority-minority district of Latinos, but Latinos became a minority of voting-age citizens in the newly drawn district. However, the Court also ruled that the legislature could redraw the map at any time as long as it was done at least every ten years. It also ruled that the map was not unconstitutional on the basis of partisan gerrymandering. (A) Identify a difference between League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) and Shaw v. Reno (1993). (B) Explain how the facts in Shaw v. Reno (1993) led to a different holding than in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). (C) Describe why these cases caused concern about the Supreme Court and the foundational principle of separation of powers. 3. After the 2000 census, a federal judge drew legislative districts in Texas because Democrats and Republicans could not agree on a map. After gaining power in the elections of 2002, Republicans in the Texas legislature redrew the map in 2003. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and violated the equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting racial minority voting strength. They also believed the mid-decade redistricting was illegal. A three-judge panel ruled that the new map was not unconstitutional, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court as League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). The Court ruled that only one of the new districts, District 23, was drawn in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because under the previous redistricting it was a protected majority-minority district of Latinos, but Latinos became a minority of voting-age citizens in the newly drawn district. However, the Court also ruled that the legislature could redraw the map at any time as long as it was done at least every ten years. It also ruled that the map was not unconstitutional on the basis of partisan gerrymandering. (A) Identify a difference between League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) and Shaw v. Reno (1993). (B) Explain how the facts in Shaw v. Reno (1993) led to a different holding than in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). (C) Describe why these cases caused concern about the Supreme Court and the foundational principle of separation of powers.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer A One difference between League of United Latin American Citizens v Perry 2006 and Shaw v Ren... View the full answer