Application For Change Of District Boundaries Or: Fill & Download for Free

FIFTH AND SIXTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTIONThe basic thrust of the Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the constitution is the protection of cultural distinctiveness of Tribal.Both provides protection to the tribals on account of their economic disadvantages so that they could maintain their tribal identity without any coercion or exploitation._________________THE INTERESTS OF SCHEDULE TRIBES OUTSIDE THE NORTH EAST IS PROTECTED BY FIFTH SCHEDULE.THE FIFTH SCHEDULE designates Schedule areas in large parts of India in which the interests of the Scheduled Tribes are to be protected. The Scheduled area has more than 50 percent tribal population._________________THE SIXTH SCHEDULE IS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH EASTERN STATES i.e. the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram in the North-east. It has provisions for the formation of autonomous districts and autonomous regions within the districts as there are different schedule tribes within the district._________________THE FIFTH SCHEDULE (ARTICLE 244(1))The Fifth Schedule being a very important provision of the constitution deals with the control and administration of the Schedule Areas. Some of the important features of the Schedule are:It deals with provision for the constitution of a Tribes Advisory CouncilThe Governor has the power to adapt laws passed by Parliament and State legislature in such a way that it suits these areas.It provides Governor with the power to make regulation for good governance and peace for the area.The Fifth Schedule also deals with the extension of direction by the Union to a State for the administration of the Schedule Areas.Under Fifth Schedule, the most important institution is the Tribes Advisory Council. In the Tribes Advisory Council, Scheduled Tribe MLA’s in the state consists of its three-fourth membership. Since Tribes Advisory Council is formed by the provisions of the Fifth Schedule it has the status of a constitutional body. The Schedule is aimed towards making the State responsible towards the promotion of educational and economic interests of Tribal. It also aims to provide social justice to the tribals and prevent them from exploitation of any kind. The Central Government also provides special financial assistance to the states under Article 275 for the implementation of schemes that would lead to the development of Schedule Tribes. (Upendra Bakshi 2009, 338-340)POWERS OF GOVERNOR UNDER FIFTH SCHEDULEThe Powers of Governor are important in the application of the provision of Fifth Schedule. He enjoys the power to modify, annul or limit the application of any law made by Parliament or State legislature in the areas designated as Schedule Areas. For good governance of the area he has the power to make regulations. He regulates land allotments to members of Schedule Tribes. He is also authorized to regulate business like money lending in the Fifth Schedule area.TRIBES ADVISORY COUNCILThe Fifth Schedule provides the provision of a Tribes Advisory Council. It deals with the provision of establishment of Tribes Advisory Council consisting of not more than twenty members. Three-fourth of its representatives would consist of Schedule tribes members of the State Assembly. In case the number of such representatives are less than the number of seats which are to be filled than the remaining seats shall be filled by other members of the tribe. The Fifth Schedule also provides the establishment of Tribes Advisory Council in states which have Schedule Tribes population but do not have Schedule Areas if the President so directs for the formation of Tribes Advisory Council in those areas.Tribes Advisory Council advise on matters related to the welfare and advancement of the Scheduled Tribes in the state which are referred to the council by the Governor.The Governor has the power to make rules prescribing or regulating, the number of members of the Council, the mode of their appointment and the appointment of the Chairman of the Council etc.LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE SCHEDULE AREASThe Governor has the power to direct about non-application of any act which has been passed by Parliament or Legislature of the State to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the state or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification and any direction given under this sub-paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect.The Governor has the power to make regulation for peace and good governance of any area in a state which is a Scheduled Area. Those regulations include prohibiting or restricting the transfer of land by or within members of the Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled areas; regulating the allotment of land to members of the Scheduled Tribes in those areas; regulating the money lending business by those who lend money to people of the Scheduled Tribes in such area. In the process of making such regulation discussed above, the Governer may repeal or amend any Union or State law. The Governor can make such regulation only after consultation with the Tribes Advisory Council of the state. It is to be understood that all such regulation will have effect only after being submitted to and accepted by the President of India.PRESIDENT AND THE SCHEDULE AREASSchedule Areas are those areas which the President may direct to be Scheduled Areas with respect to the Fifth Schedule of our Constitution. The President has the power to direct that the whole or any part of a Scheduled area has ceased to be a Scheduled area. He can after consultation with the governor of that state increase the area of any Scheduled Area. In this way he possesses the power to alter the boundaries of any Schedule area. The regulations made by the Governor come into effect only when they are accepted by the President. Governor is required to submit annually the reports regarding administration of the Scheduled areas to the President.AMENDMENT OF THE SCHEDULEParliament through a law can amend any of the provisions of this Schedule by way of addition, variation or repeal. Any such law is not deemed to be an amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution._________________PROVISIONS OF SIXTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE 244(2) AND 275(1))The Sixth Schedule is different from the Fifth Schedule as it deals with the details of the mechanism and institutions essential for governance of the autonomous districts in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. These autonomous districts are directly administered by the Governor. The Sixth Schedule deals with the constitution, powers and functions of District Councils and Regional Councils in these autonomous districts.These Councils enjoy legislative powers on specific subjects and are also allotted certain sources of taxation. These councils also have the powers powers to set up and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health etc..These Autonomous District Councils are in existence in the states of Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, and Meghalaya. The Indian Constitution provides funds under Article 275(1) to both Schedule Fifth and Schedule Sixth areas for the purpose of promoting the welfare of Scheduled tribes or raising the level of administration of the Schedule Areas.The Autonomous districts are the mechanism to safeguard the traditional heritage of the Tribals, their customary practices and usages and also maintaining economic security. This is achieved by conferring on them Executive, Legislative and judicial powers along with development and financial powers and functions.Sixth Schedule envisages the powers of the Autonomous District Councils within the autonomous areas, to make laws of the land, management of forests (except reserved forests), regulation on trade by persons not being local schedule tribes, appointment of traditional chiefs and headmen, inheritance of property, marriage, divorce, social customs, establishment and maintenance of primary schools, markets, taxation, issue of lease for extraction of minerals etc..ROLE OF GOVERNORThe Governor under the provision of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution is empowered to determine areas under the administration of the council. He has the authority to form new autonomous districts. He can increase or reduce the area of any autonomous districts or Districts Councils. He is also empowered to unite two or more districts or its parts to carve out one autonomous district from it. The Governor can also define the boundaries or alter the name of any autonomous district. But it should be noted that such changes can only be brought in the composition of the territory of Autonomous District Councils by the Governor after the submission of report of the appointed commission for that purpose. Eg: If the Governor of Manipur has to issue such order than he has to take the consultation of the Hill Area Committee. There has been some differences observed in designation of the Administrative areas of the District Councils from one place to another. Eg: In some states like Assam and Meghalaya the District Council has been constituted at the District level. But in Mizoram it exists both at the district and sub-divisional level.

Original Question:Where is redistricting covered in The Constitution and what was the original intent of allowing redistricting?I understand SCOTUS is going to take up a case about “gerrymandering” and I admit I'm very weak on where redistricting is allowed in The Constitution and why the FF’’s determined it should be a practice.The Constitution vaguely mentions redistricting in Article 1 Section 2 [1]:The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.Article 1 Section 2’s intent was to require that states redo their political maps ever 10 years to reflect changes in the population. Why? Because each state is granted seats for the House of Representatives roughly based on population [2]:By federal law, redistricting must occur following a census for two reasons. First, new districts must be drawn when a state gains or loses congressional districts as a result of the apportionment of congressional districts to the states.Second, even if the number of districts does not change, governments must redraw districts so that the districts have equal populations. These are the reasons why redistricting must occur. Some governments may choose to conduct redistricting for political reasons. The most infamous case in recent times was the 2003 re-redistricting in Texas, where Democratic state legislators fled the state to prevent a mid-decade congressional redistricting.The Constitution also mentions redistricting in Article 1 Section 4 [3]:The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.This Section of Article 1 was written to determine the authority in charge of redistricting. This authority was given in part to state legislators but gives ultimate authority to Congress. However, Congress has never mandated a redistricting procedure and ultimately lets the states do as they wish.Because there are no real explicit guidelines, it remains relatively unclear how voting power will be apportioned and specifically how representatives will be elected.James Madison did write about single-member districts in the Federalist Paper [4]:"…divide the largest state into ten or twelve districts and it will be found that there will be no peculiar interests...which will not be within the knowledge of the Representative of the district."Single-member districts, explained [5]:The single member plurality election is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member plurality systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the highest vote-getter winning election, even if he or she has received less than half of the vote.In addition to the problems endemic to all winner-take-all systems, single member plurality results create some specific difficulties of their own:Where the boundaries of districts are drawn can have a huge effect on who is likely to win election.As a result, gerrymandering to protect incumbents or weaken political enemies is common under single member plurality systems.Single member plurality elections are prone to the spoiler dynamic.Where more than two viable candidates run and split the vote within a district, the “winner” of an election can often be the candidate whom the majority of voters liked least.Generally, parties will limit the number of candidates running to avoid this scenario, leaving voters with minimal choice.These dynamics essentially mean that in the vast majority of single member plurality elections, voters have no effective choice, but to ratify the candidate of the majority party in their district.Single member majority systems are identical to single-member plurality systems, except that they use two round runoffs or instant runoff voting to ensure that the winner of an election has the support of the majority of voters. While this eliminates the spoiler problem, it does nothing to stop the negative effects of gerrymandering or the limitations inherent in making geography the primary districting criteria. In some cases these systems can also make it harder for communities of color to win election.As you can see, Madison’s brief mention of a single-member district offers no real clarifications, and because the Constitution offers no real clarification either, things become complicated in regards to gerrymandering.A small clarification came in 1842, called the apportionment act [6]:…House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected agreeably to a ratio of one Representative for every seventy thousand six hundred and eighty persons in each State, and of one additional representative for each State having a fraction greater than one moiety of the said ratio, computed according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution of the United States; that is to say:Within the State of Maine, Number of sevenWithin the State of New Hampshire, fourWithin the State of Representatives Massachusetts, tenWithin the State of Rhode Island, twoWithin the State of Connecticut, fourWithin the State of Vermont, fourWithin the State of New York, thirty-fourWithin the State of New Jersey, fiveWithin the State of Pennsylvania, twenty-fourWithin the State of Delaware, oneWithin the State of Maryland, sixWithin the State of Virginia, fifteenWithin the State of North Carolina, nineWithin the State of South Carolina, sevenWithin the State of Georgia, eightWithin the State of Alabama, sevenWithin the State of Louisiana, fourWithin the State of Mississippi, fourWithin the State of Tennessee, elevenWithin the State of Kentucky, tenWithin the State of Ohio, twenty-oneWithin the State of Indiana, tenWithin the State of Illinois, sevenWithin the State of Missouri, fiveWithin the State of Arkansas, oneWithin the State of Michigan, threeSEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That in every case where a State is entitled to more than one Representative, the number to which each is entitled under this apportionment shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number the election to of Representatives to which said State may be entitled, no one district be by districts, electing more than one Representative.This Act set the House membership at a total of 223.Regardless, many states didn’t follow the rules of the 1842 Act once it was established [7]:In the first election after the passage of the 1842 act four states -- Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire -- continued to elect representatives at-large rather than by districts.While there was considerable debate as to the legality of their election, these states' representatives were seated in the House. It was later determined in an 1844 report from the Committee on Elections that these four states' members had been duly elected. This report, too, questioned the constitutionality of Congress' authority to dictate changes in pre-existing state election laws.After the 1842 Act, Apportionment Acts were written after every census [7]:These acts increased the number of representatives as the population of the country increased and more states were added to the Union. However, the districting provisions of the 1842 act were modified inconsistently, resulting in several important changes in congressional districting policy.An apportionment act passed in 1850 (9 Stat. 433) increased the size of the House to 233 but dropped provisions requiring elections by districts. However, an act in 1862 (12 Stat. 572) restored the provisions of the act of 1842 requiring districts composed of contiguous territory.An apportionment act in 1872 (17 Stat. 28) again reiterated the requirement of districts composed of contiguous territory and added that they should contain "as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants." The apportionment act of 1882 (22 Stat. 5) and an act in 1891 repeated the provisions of contiguous territory and equal population of the 1872 act. An apportionment act in 1901 (31 Stat. 733) added that districts should not only be of equal population and contiguous but also be of "compact territory." These provisions were also included in 1911's apportionment act (37 Stat. 13).SCOTUS ruled on further requirements regarding population change in a 1932 ruling [5]:In 1929 Congress passed a combined census-reapportionment bill which established a permanent method for apportioning House seats according to each census. This bill neither repealed nor restated the requirements of the previous apportionment acts -- that districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.It was not clear if these requirements were still in effect until the Supreme Court ruled in 1932 in Wood v. Broom that the provisions of each apportionment act affected only the apportionment for which they were written. Thus the size and population requirements, last stated in the act of 1911, expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent apportionment act.Thus, the permanent act of 1929 gave little direction concerning congressional districting. It merely established a system in which House seats would be reallocated to states which have shifts in population.The lack of recommendations concerning districts had several significant effects:It allowed states to draw districts of varying size and shape.It allowed states to abandon districts altogether and elect at least some representatives at large, which several states chose to do, including New York, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii and New Mexico. In the 88th Congress (in the early 1960s), for example, 22 of the 435 representatives were elected at-large.The Supreme Court rulings for Wesberry v. Sanders & Reynolds v. Sims were based on population and redistricting. Both took place in 1964 [8]:The ruling for Wesberry v. Sanders:…requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population.The ruling for Reynolds v. Sims [9]:…in the election of any chamber of a state legislature the electoral districts must be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama by M.O. Sims, a taxpayer in Birmingham, Alabama, but affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population after its application in five companion cases in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware.These cases were brought to the SCOTUS because [10]:Some states had failed to draw new districts for as many as sixty years, which had provided slow growing rural areas with more representation than fast growing urban areas. At the time of the so-called reapportionment revolution, balancing district populations was predicted to shift government policies towards those favored by urban interests and even to limit gerrymandering.These rulings and many others effectively nullified state practices of apportioning their state legislative seats among their counties or towns; for example, providing every county one seat and apportioning the remainder among the larger population counties (ironically, a process similar to the apportionment of congressional seats to the states). Many states amended their constitutions to revise their redistricting processes, so that the federal courts would not nullify this section of their state constitution.In 1967, the federal government passed a law that required Congressional districts to be single member:2 U.S. Code § 2c - Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District [11] :In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).The League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry is a SCOTUS case from 2006 regarding gerrymandering in Texas.Here is some quick background [12]:After the 2000 United States Census Democrats and Republicans in the Texas Legislature could not reach an agreement on redistricting and a new plan had to be drawn by a federal three-judge court made up of U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, and U.S. District Judges John H. Hannah, Jr. and T. John Ward.When Tom DeLay and his Texans for a Republican Majority helped Republicans win total control of the state in the 2002 election, however, they sought to replace the court’s redistricting plan.Democratic lawmakers known as the Killer Ds and the Texas Eleven fled the state to deny the legislature of a quorum, but the clerk of the Texas House of Representatives issued arrest warrants for the legislators and Delay had federal agencies track their movements.Governor Rick Perry called three special sessions and ultimately passed the new plan. Career staff at the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division advised the plan failed pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but were overruled by acting Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman.At the November 2004 election, Republican seats increased from fifteen to twenty-one, with even Martin Frost, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, losing his seat.Private plaintiffs sued, alleging:Any mid-decade redistricting was illegalThe plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymanderIt was in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.On January 6, 2004, a three-judge district court now made up of Circuit Judge Higgenbotham, and District Judges Ward and Lee H. Rosenthal rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims, with Judge Ward concurring in part and dissenting in part.On October 18, 2004, however, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case after its new plurality decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer readdressed the political question doctrine. On June 9, 2005, the three-judge court rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims again, with Judge Ward writing a special concurrence.Plaintiffs appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, where two hours of argument were heard on March 1, 2006, with Paul M. Smith appearing for the statewide plaintiffs, Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund appearing for the District 23 plaintiffs, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz appearing for the state, and then-Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre appearing as a friend of Texas.On June 28, 2006, the second to last day of the term, a highly fractured Court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims except for the vote dilution claim in Texas's 23rd congressional district, producing six different opinions spanning 121 pages of the United States Reports.The ruling:The Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.The opinion requires lawmakers to adjust Congressional district boundaries in comport with the Court's ruling, though the ruling does not threaten Republican gains as a result of the redistricting in Texas.The Court also declined to resolve a dispute over whether partisan gerrymandering claims present non-justiciable political questions.Basically, the ruling allowed states to redistrict before each election if they wanted to, which further complicates everything.Single-member districts made sense 150 years ago, but they no longer do [5]:The single-member district has become the tradition in American representative government. This method of electing representatives was a practical system when it was first instituted over 150 years ago. In addition to ensuring more partisan fairness among the two major parties, districts seemed to encourage representatives' accountability by being connected geographically and ideologically to their constituents. This system also provided a more efficient means of contact with constituents at a time when modes of transportation and communication were relatively slow.The formation of equitable single-member districts has become increasingly tedious, however, and increasingly open to partisan manipulation given advances in computer technology and measures of voter behavior. It also raises important concerns about electoral fairness. The obvious example is the controversy over districts drawn to provide electoral opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities who have faced a history of discrimination.Such districts can allow minority voters an opportunity to elect candidates of choice, yet become more problematic as our population becomes increasingly mobile and racial and ethnic minorities outside of urban areas are less concentrated in one geographic locale. In order to create some minority majority districts, districts must be carved out which are misshapen and incongruous, defeating the earlier notions that they be compact and contiguous. Similar districts of course are often drawn to protect incumbents or provide partisan advantage.Although instituted to better represent groups in the minority, single-member districts still can consistently under-represent those in the minority, or even leave them unrepresented. Whether consciously drawn with such an intent or not, districts can consistently deny the desired representation of a permanent minority.Single-member districts have undergone an equivocal and unsettled history in order for them to have become established as the norm for our national elections. Now, their effectiveness and practicality in an increasingly diverse and mobile population may well face more challenges.On the other hand, multi-member elections for Congress are a forgotten and overlooked part of our country's electoral history. Until thirty years ago, a majority of state legislative seats were elected from multi-member districts, while a majority of local officials still are elected from such districts.When combined with proportional representation (such as cumulative voting or preference voting), multi-member districts would provide states with a viable method to reduce problems inherent in single-member districts. Provision for simply giving states the option to have multi-member districts requires only repeal of the single-member district requirement passed by Congress in 1967.I think I should also clarify on the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering: redistricting isn’t necessarily bad (and it has to happen), gerrymandering, however, is bad.Redistricting [13]:to divide anew into districts, as for administrative or electoral purposes.Gerrymandering [14]:the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.Many believe that as long as legislators are allowed to draw the political map, they will choose their voters instead of allowing their voters to choose them. Because of this, some have suggested creating computer algorithms that draw districts instead.The Washington Post explores what that would be like [15]:Olson's algorithm creates "optimally compact" equal-population congressional districts in each state, based on 2010 census data. It draws districts that respect the boundaries of census blocks, which are the smallest geographic units used by the Census Bureau. This ensures that the district boundaries reflect actual neighborhoods and don't, say, cut an arbitrary line through somebody's house.Rather than a confusing snarl of interlocked districts, you have neat, trim boundaries that make intuitive sense.Here are some pictures of this algorithm at work:Here is an up close view of North Carolina:Pennsylvania:Algorithms like this one prioritize compactness -- that is, ensuring that voters are geographically close together. One of the telltale signs of gerrymandering is dramatically non-compact districts that squiggle and squirm out in all different directions -- evidence of lawmakers trying to bring far-flung voters into a single district in order to achieve the partisan mix that best favors their party.However, compactness isn’t always the issue, so there may be strengths in certain areas with algorithms, but in other areas, this wouldn’t be the best solution.Recently, SCOTUS ruled in May of this year (2017) that districts drawn by Republicans in North Carolina violated the Constitution [16]:In recent cases concerning legislative maps in Alabama and Virginia, as well, the Supreme Court has insisted that packing black voters into a few districts — which dilutes their voting power — violates the Constitution.Republicans in the North Carolina legislature denied that race was the predominant factor in redrawing the boundaries of the two districts under review. In one of them, though, they said, they had made some use of race.The lawmakers said they had tried to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which in some settings requires that black voters be concentrated in numbers sufficient to provide them with an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. But critics of the voting map said the legislature was actually trying to diminish the number of districts in the state that could be won by Democrats.SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case regarding Republican redistricting in Wisconsin; this has the potential to give much needed clarifications on what is/isn’t allowed in redistricting. [17]…justices have never found a plan unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering — when a majority party draws the state’s electoral districts to give such an advantage to its candidates that it dilutes the votes of those supporting the other party.A divided panel of three judges in Wisconsin, though, decided just that in November. It became the first federal court in three decades to find that a redistricting plan violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections because of partisan gerrymandering.The Supreme Court could announce as soon as next Monday that it is either affirming or reversing the lower court’s decision, or, more likely, accepting the case for full briefing and arguments in the term that begins in the fall.The case comes at a time when the dusty subject of reapportionment has taken on new significance, with many blaming the drawing of safely partisan seats for a polarized and gridlocked Congress…The Supreme Court has been reluctant to tackle partisan gerrymandering and sort through arguments about whether an electoral system is rigged or, instead, a party’s political advantage is due to changing attitudes and demographics….The Wisconsin court was not so definitive. It acknowledged the efficiency gap, but only as one of several theories the court said corroborated its findings that the Republican leadership had a discriminatory intent, that its plan had a discriminatory effect and that the state had no legitimate reason for drawing the districts in the way it did.For a better explanation of Gerrymandering, and why there is trouble in determining what does/doesn’t cross a line, I’d suggest watching John Oliver’s explanation below:Footnotes[1] U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net[2] What is Redistricting? - Public Mapping Project[3] U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 4 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net[4] History of Single Member Districts for Congress[5] FairVote - Single-Member District Systems[6] https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1840_Apportionment.pdf[7] History of Single Member Districts for Congress[8] Wesberry v. Sanders - Wikipedia[9] Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia[10] What is Redistricting? - Public Mapping Project[11] 2 U.S. Code § 2c - Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District[12] League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry - Wikipedia[13] the definition of redistricting[14] the definition of gerrymander[15] This is actually what America would look like without gerrymandering[16] Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias[17] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-could-tackle-partisan-gerrymandering-in-watershed-case/2017/06/11/e166e3aa-4c5d-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.73507675548a

Are Maps Killing Your Vote?Every ten years, in a process that profoundly impacts American politics, the legislative districts are redrawn to determine who votes where. But because of a practice called gerrymandering “we, the people” are not necessarily deciding who represents us.The EvidenceThe United States Constitution requires that a population count, the decennial Census, serve as the basis for redistricting. Congressional districts are then reapportioned among the states and each state is divided into districts of equal population. State legislatures and many local governments work the same way. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the redrawing of state and congressional lines must also maximize any clear opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of their choosing.Who Dunnit? The Representative with the Map Book in the Drawing RoomIn all but 13 states, legislators redraw state and congressional districts. As you can imagine, the highly charged and competitive political environment has resulted in less than ideal boundary changes, even when legislators obey the letter of the law.And if the outcome of a lawmaker’s next election is effectively pre-determined by how they draw a map (the process known as gerrymandering), then they are less likely to listen to voters. If a lawmaker is corrupt or failing on their campaign promises, voters have less power to hold them accountable and minority neighborhoods may have their voting power diluted.The minority vote protections in the Voting Rights Act resulted in a situation where the party that elected minorities also controlled the House of Representatives. Democrats championed the process, redrawing districts to maintain minority populations. Due to this, Democrats largely controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995. Now this "clumping" is hurting Democrats. Democrats are increasingly winning the majority of the votes in small geographic, mostly urban, areas. These urban districts are very hard to gerrymander. This is because most local governments want House districts that respect local boundaries and that local politicians can defend in the polls, while Democratic city governments can influence Democratic state legislators who might otherwise be tempted to gerrymander.GOP drawn boundaries have been seen to overcrowd districts created by Democrats with disproportionate amounts of minority populations. By increasing numbers in a safe Democratic district, Republicans reduce the influence of the liberal voting bloc in both state politics and congressional elections. Republicans controlled the US House from 1995 until 2006. However, the party retained its power in state legislatures, and redrew favorable maps after the 2010 Census.The Murder Weapon?What is the cause of this situation? The lack of impartial redistricters or tools that make it too easy to redistrict?The widespread use of redistricting software has made the drawing of redistricting plans easier from a technical perspective. But the software is simply a tool and when put in the wrong hands can be used outside of the original intent of the application. The Maptitude mapping software is the dominant product used to redistrict (www.redistricting.com), and is regularly mentioned in the mainstream press and has been covered in Rolling Stone, Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Atlantic Cities, The New York Times, and many other media outlets. However, it is often a reference in regards to how Republicans use Maptitude to redistrict. This is despite Maptitude being used by a supermajority of the state legislatures, political parties, and public interest groups of both political parties.So is it the redistricters fault? Several states already use independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions, and are having great success. In 2011 for example, California established a citizens redistricting commission that used Maptitude to successfully redraw the maps. In another example, in Oakland, anyone could propose a district map by using Maptitude: http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/09/18/oakland-redistricting/ .An Isolated Case?In the rest of the world, systems like California’s are closer to the norm. Indeed, in Canada, Australia and many other Western countries, politicians aren’t allowed anywhere near the district maps. But politics can still impact redistricting. In Saskatoon, Canada, the 2002 independent boundary commission had wanted to change the rural-urban boundaries into urban districts to better represent the character of the areas. But this was opposed by the party that would lose seats, and the proposed changes had to wait until 2012.In the UK, changes to the boundaries and number of constituencies are being proposed to save money and because the average size of the electorate in a Labour party seat is 68,487 compared to 72,418 in Conservative party seats and 69,440 in Liberal Democrat party seats. The UK does not have a history of legal challenges to redistricting plans, and these challenges may cause judicial review of specific boundary commission decisions as well as to variations in the overall national redistricting plan. While the Electoral Commission has been effective in creating equal seats, the process has introduced biased redistricting that has gone unchallenged. Availability of US-style redistricting software (of which Maptitude is the best-of-breed) will enable serious partisan and non-partisan (interest group, local group, etc.) opposition to be mounted, while enabling boundary commissions to objectively defend new delineations.The VerdictShould people be involved in the process at all? While there have been attempts to completely automate the creation of districts using non-partisan computer algorithms, it has been argued ( http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=djclpp ) that with only a small handful of variables the redistricting problem becomes incredibly complex very quickly, so complex that it is "probably impossible to create a computer program that [automatically] solves these problems optimally and reliably except in very small or limited cases."Human intervention in the process is currently the best way to redistrict, and Maptitude supports the production of defensible, reproducible, and consistent plans, based on a rigorous software implementation that adheres to the standards and data required by the plan creation process.Maptitude cannot prevent intentional biases that may be introduced into plans, but does enable serious non-partisan opposition to be mounted to proposed districts, while enabling redistricting bodies to robustly defend new delineations. Simply put, a fully transparent and open process is required to produce boundaries worthy of a democratic process.