The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected two Republican challenges to the state's new electoral maps, dealing a blow to halt new district boundaries that could diminish their political clout.
The state's high court rejected two petitions from Republicans challenging the validity of the state Senate and congressional redistricting maps recently adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Supreme Court also rejected their requests for an emergency stay that would have stopped use of the maps in 2012.
The commission had asked the court to reject them, arguing that opponents had failed to provide facts showing the commission's work was unreasonable. The court voted 7-0.
"The Supreme Court has struck a blow against politics as usual by upholding the fair and representative maps created by the Citizens Redistricting Commission," said Commissioner Stan Forbes, a decline-to-state voter from Yolo County who is the current rotating chairman of the commission.
Voters approved the citizen-led redistricting commission to create California's legislative and congressional districts in response to decades of gerrymandering by lawmakers that preserved districts for incumbents and the parties. In July, the 14-member panel approved final versions of the district maps for Congress, the state Assembly and Senate, and the state Board of Equalization, which administers sales and use taxes.
The maps were certified Aug. 15.
The state's high court rejected two petitions from Republicans challenging the validity of the state Senate and congressional redistricting maps recently adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Supreme Court also rejected their requests for an emergency stay that would have stopped use of the maps in 2012.
The commission had asked the court to reject them, arguing that opponents had failed to provide facts showing the commission's work was unreasonable. The court voted 7-0.
"The Supreme Court has struck a blow against politics as usual by upholding the fair and representative maps created by the Citizens Redistricting Commission," said Commissioner Stan Forbes, a decline-to-state voter from Yolo County who is the current rotating chairman of the commission.
Voters approved the citizen-led redistricting commission to create California's legislative and congressional districts in response to decades of gerrymandering by lawmakers that preserved districts for incumbents and the parties. In July, the 14-member panel approved final versions of the district maps for Congress, the state Assembly and Senate, and the state Board of Equalization, which administers sales and use taxes.
The maps were certified Aug. 15.
Republicans contend the Senate and congressional maps failed to comply with the Voting Rights Act and did not meet the constitutional criteria for drawing the maps in a transparent process and trying to keep communities together.
(nctimes)
This relates to what we are learning in class. Congress and the Supreme court were dealing with a republican problem that only the Constitution could fix. like the article said, the maps failed to go with the Voting Rights act. The citizens did not have a say so on what they wanted to do. For example, The supreme court is a part of the judicial branch (reviews laws) and so they had to review if this was constitutional to create the maps and use them.
This relates to me because i am a citizen. being able to vote is a right as a citizen and if we werent allowed to vote, we would have major problems in choosing the "right path" to our society.for example, If we didnt get to choose the president of the u.s. then we could have a terrible president and a terrible place to live in! he could make up rules that go againts the constitution, create unimportant wars, ect. anything could happen but its out job as citizens to choose correctly
(nctimes)
This relates to what we are learning in class. Congress and the Supreme court were dealing with a republican problem that only the Constitution could fix. like the article said, the maps failed to go with the Voting Rights act. The citizens did not have a say so on what they wanted to do. For example, The supreme court is a part of the judicial branch (reviews laws) and so they had to review if this was constitutional to create the maps and use them.
This relates to me because i am a citizen. being able to vote is a right as a citizen and if we werent allowed to vote, we would have major problems in choosing the "right path" to our society.for example, If we didnt get to choose the president of the u.s. then we could have a terrible president and a terrible place to live in! he could make up rules that go againts the constitution, create unimportant wars, ect. anything could happen but its out job as citizens to choose correctly
