Abstract
Gerrymandering (partisan redistricting) is widely believed to deprive citizens of meaningful participation in the democratic process. It is seen as an obvious conflict of interest because there is ample evidence that lawmakers use redistricting to protect both their personal electoral prospects and their party’s legislative advantages. The impression that an inherent conflict of interest occurs when legislators determine the composition of the population that will vote for them has revived efforts to reform the ways states handle redistricting and reignited scholarly disputes over the degree to which the ills ascribed to partisan redistricting are accurate. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to revisit its redistricting jurisprudence, making it timely to revisit the contending academic arguments about the political effects of gerrymandering and the existing constitutional jurisprudence.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
