Redistricting in California - Ballotpedia

Redistricting in California

The ward change is to draw the border between the new constituencies between the Federal Congress and the State Congress. 52 Federal House of Representatives in California and 120 state council members are elected by political divisions called constituencies. The Senator is selected from the entire state, not the constituency. The line drawing in the constituency is performed every 10 years after the US Census. The federal government states that constituencies must have almost uniform population and should not be discriminated by race and ethnic groups. [1] [2] [3] [4]

California was assigned 52 seats with one less seat after the 2010 census after the 2020 census. Click here for details on California Division after the 2020 census.

The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, decided on a large number of new federal assembly divisions 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the Map was submitted to the Secretary of State. [5] [6] After the 2020 census, 52 seats were assigned to California, one of which was pure one seat compared to the allocation after the 2010 census. The map was applied from the 2022 California general election. The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, submitted a new state and Senate constituency map 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the map was submitted to the Ise Director. [These maps will be valid from the 2022 California Congress election. Click here for details of the map enacted after the 2020 Census.

See the following section for more information on the following topics:

Background: Overview of legislation / stat e-level federal division requirements
Overview of the ward division change process in California in the state
Information on the current regional map of the area map California
Information on the current regional map of California: Analysis of the most important events in California Division after recent census
State Law and voting policy: State law related to r e-division policy and voting policies in the state and regions
Analysis of political issues on redistribution of political implications < SPAN> Division change is the border between the new constituency between the Federal Congress and the State Congress. 52 Federal House of Representatives in California and 120 state council members are elected by political divisions called constituencies. The Senator is selected from the entire state, not the constituency. The line drawing in the constituency is performed every 10 years after the US Census. The federal government states that constituencies must have almost uniform population and should not be discriminated by race and ethnic groups. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Background

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

California was assigned 52 seats with one less seat after the 2010 census after the 2020 census. Click here for details on California Division after the 2020 census.

“	advertisement	”
The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, decided on a large number of new federal assembly divisions 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the Map was submitted to the Secretary of State. [5] [6] After the 2020 census, 52 seats were assigned to California, one of which was pure one seat compared to the allocation after the 2010 census. The map was applied from the 2022 California general election. The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, submitted a new state and Senate constituency map 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the map was submitted to the Ise Director. [These maps will be valid from the 2022 California Congress election. Click here for details of the map enacted after the 2020 Census.

See the following section for more information on the following topics:

Background: Overview of legislation / stat e-level federal division requirements

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

Overview of the ward division change process in California in the state

State-based requirements

Information on the current regional map of the area map California

Information on the current regional map of California: Analysis of the most important events in California Division after recent census
State Law and voting policy: State law related to r e-division policy and voting policies in the state and regions
Changing the analysis of political issues on redistribution of political implications is to subtract the border between the new constituency between the Federal Congress and the State Congress. 52 Federal House of Representatives in California and 120 state council members are elected by political divisions called constituencies. The Senator is selected from the entire state, not the constituency. The line drawing in the constituency is performed every 10 years after the US Census. The federal government states that constituencies must have almost uniform population and should not be discriminated by race and ethnic groups. [1] [2] [3] [4]
California was assigned 52 seats with one less seat after the 2010 census after the 2020 census. Click here for details on California Division after the 2020 census.

Methods

The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, decided on a large number of new federal assembly divisions 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the Map was submitted to the Secretary of State. [5] [6] After the 2020 census, 52 seats were assigned to California, one of which was pure one seat compared to the allocation after the 2010 census. The map was applied from the 2022 California general election. The California Civil Citizen Division, on December 20, 2021, submitted a new state and Senate constituency map 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, the map was submitted to the Ise Director. [These maps will be valid from the 2022 California Congress election. Click here for details of the map enacted after the 2020 Census.
See the following section for more information on the following topics:
Background: Overview of legislation / stat e-level federal division requirements

Gerrymandering

Overview of the ward division change process in California in the state

Information on the current regional map of the area map California

Information on the current regional map of California: Analysis of the most important events in California Division after recent census

State Law and voting policy: State law related to r e-division policy and voting policies in the state and regions

Analysis of political issues regarding redistribution of redistribution

Recent court decisions

Based on Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the state and the parliament have the first authority to determine the "time, place, and method" of the parliamentary election. Congress may also pass laws that regulate parliamentary elections. [7] [8]

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

The time, location, and methods of the elections of the Senator and the House of Representatives shall be determined by the legislature in each state, but the Federal Congress always regulates such regulations, except for the election location of the Senate. Can be established or changed. [9]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

- (9) Constitution of the United States.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that parliamentary representatives are allocated to each state based on the population. The House of Representatives in the United States has 435 seats. Each state is distributed some of the seats based on the population ratio with other states. Therefore, as the population of a certain state increases, the number of seats increases, and the decrease in the population, the reduced seats. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that in the Wesbury vs. Sunders case, the population of the lower house was "as possible." [10] [11] [12]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

The population equal requirements of the lower house constituencies are strict. According to All About Redistricting, "average or less or less constituencies than the average population (known as the" ideal "population)) must be justified by a consistent state policy. [12] Even if the consistent policy is one percent difference between the maximum constituency and the minimum constituency, it is likely to be unconstitutional. "[12] [12]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

The United States Constitution has silenced the state's legal division. In the mi d-1960s, the United States Supreme Court made a series of ruling to clarify the standards for the state parliamentary ward. In the Reynolds vs. Sims case, the court demanded that (the United States Constitution) requires more equal protection clauses for all citizens, all areas, and all races. I wasn't. " According to All About Redistriction, "if the maximum and minimum and minimum wards (in the state or in the jurisdiction) are more than 10 %, the (division) plan has been suspected in the constitution." [12] Based on the

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

In addition to the abov e-mentioned federal standards, each state may impose additional requirements at the time of r e-splitting. The following are the general stat e-level division change standards below.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Consistency is the principle that all regions in the constituency must be physically continuous. It requires that a total of 49 states are adjacent to at least one state constituency (Nevada has no such requirements and imposes division requirements that are imposed on the federal level. do not have). A total of 23 states require parliamentary wards to meet continuity requirements. [12] [13]

Continuousness is a general principle that members in the constituency should live as close as possible to each other. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements in the state constituency. The 18 states impose similar requirements in parliamentary constituencies. [12] [13]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

A profit community is a group of people who share political, social and economic interests in geographical areas such as specific areas and neighborhoods, defined by Fairbeai. A total of 24 states have called for the preservation of profit communities in drafting in the state constituency. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements in parliamentary constituencies. [12] [13]

Race and ethnicity

A total of 42 states have called for political boundaries (such as counties, cities, and town boundaries) in the line of constituencies in the state council. A total of 19 states have called for similar consideration for the federal constituency. [12] [13]

“	Roughly speaking, the state division organization of the state is classified as one of the following: [14]	”
Legal right: In the sovereign state, the parliament holds the final authority to create and set the constituency map. Maps enacted by legislative prefectures may not be subject to government's veto. The Advisory Committee may be involved in the ward process, but the legislative government does not need to adopt the advisory committee's recommendation.

In the state of the committee committee system, the committee outside the parliament will hold the final authority of the local map planning and adoption. The no n-political committee is a committee that does not have the right to voting. The Policy Committee is a committee that the committee may be elected.

State process

Hybrid: In Hybrid, Congress shares the Redevelopment Bureau with the Committee. < SPAN> In addition to the abov e-mentioned federal standards, each state may impose additional requirements at the time of r e-division. The following are the general stat e-level division change standards below.
Consistency is the principle that all regions in the constituency must be physically continuous. It requires that a total of 49 states are adjacent to at least one state constituency (Nevada has no such requirements and imposes division requirements that are imposed on the federal level. do not have). A total of 23 states require parliamentary wards to meet continuity requirements. [12] [13]
Continuousness is a general principle that members in the constituency should live as close as possible to each other. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements in the state constituency. The 18 states impose similar requirements in parliamentary constituencies. [12] [13]
A profit community is a group of people who share political, social and economic interests in geographical areas such as specific areas and neighborhoods, defined by Fairbeai. A total of 24 states have called for the preservation of profit communities in drafting in the state constituency. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements in parliamentary constituencies. [12] [13]

Roughly speaking, the state division organization of the state is classified as one of the following: [14]

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

Legal right: In the sovereign state, the parliament holds the final authority to create and set the constituency map. Maps enacted by legislative prefectures may not be subject to government's veto. The Advisory Committee may be involved in the ward process, but the legislative government does not need to adopt the advisory committee's recommendation.

District maps

Congressional districts

Hybrid: In Hybrid, Congress shares the Redevelopment Bureau with the Committee. In addition to the abov e-mentioned federal standards, each state may impose additional requirements at the time of r e-splitting. The following are the general stat e-level division change standards below.

Hybrid: In Hybrid, Congress shares the Redevelopment Bureau with the Committee.

According to Britanica Encyclopedia, in 1812, the Governor of Massachusetts, Errbridge Gerry, "integrated the Federal Party into a small number of constituencies, and consequently gave the Democratic Party's righ t-handed representative rights." He signed the Charter and made it a law. The word gerrymander is a coined word of Boston Journal, which represents this constituency.	See: Gerimander	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can set a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure compatibility of voting law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18] According to Britanica Encyclopedia, in 1812, the Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gelly, "integrated the Federal Party into a small number of constituencies, and consequently, the Democratic Party is improper in the state near the Democratic Party. He signed the Senate Charter, which gave a representation right, and made it a law. The word gerrymander is a coined word of Boston Journal, which represents this constituency.	See: Gerimander	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
See: Gerimander	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
See also NAACP State Conference, Alexander, Alexander vs. South Carolina, Alexander. The lawsuit was an objection to the parliamentary division plan established by the South Carolina Congress after the 2020 census. In January 2023, the Federal 3 Judge Panel ruled that the first ward of the state parliament was unconstitutional, and that the state would use the constituency boundary to carry out future elections. This is the opinion of the panel: "The court determines that the main factors adopted the first constituency were races. The defendant uses races in the design of the Federal Congress 1. It does not show that there is an unavoidable national interest, and it is unbearable. [19] Thomas Alexander (Republican Party) was dissatisfied with the Federal Court's ruling as South Calorina's Senator, and claimed as follows :: South Calorina's first ward of the first ward of the State Congress. In destroying as a holy war, the committee did not even mention the estimation of the General Assembly, "Sincerity." As a result, a weak order was given to be dishonest. < SPAN> Reference: The Division of the United States Supreme Court In the United States Supreme Supreme Court in the United States has recently filed some rulings related to ward change policies. It includes consideration for races when creating a constituency map, the use of allocation of the population, and the constitutional ruling of the Independent District Division Division Committee. The ruling of these trials was issued in several states and affects the national division process. Click "[SHOW MORE]" below for details of these trials.	See also NAACP State Conference, Alexander, Alexander vs. South Carolina, Alexander. The lawsuit was an objection to the parliamentary division plan established by the South Carolina Congress after the 2020 census. In January 2023, the Federal 3 Judge Panel ruled that the first ward of the state parliament was unconstitutional, and that the state would use the constituency boundary to carry out future elections. This is the opinion of the panel: "The court determines that the main factors adopted the first constituency were races. The defendant uses races in the design of the Federal Congress 1. It does not show that there is an unavoidable national interest, and it is unbearable. [19] Thomas Alexander (Republican Party) was dissatisfied with the Federal Court's ruling as South Calorina's Senator, and claimed as follows :: South Calorina's first ward of the first ward of the State Congress. In destroying as a holy war, the committee did not even mention the estimation of the General Assembly, "Sincerity." As a result, a weak order was given to be dishonest. See: The Division of the United States Supreme Corporation, which is the United States Supreme Court, has recently filed some rulings related to ward change policies in recent years. It includes consideration for races when creating a constituency map, the use of allocation of the population, and the constitutional ruling of the Independent District Division Division Committee. The ruling of these trials was issued in several states and affects the national division process. Click "[SHOW MORE]" below for details of these trials.	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
See also: Gill v Whitford Gill v Whitford, decided June 18, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs, 12 Wisconsin Democrats who claimed that their state's congressional redistricting plan was unconstitutionally enjoined in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, had failed to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader issue of whether the partisan gerrymandering claim was justified, but instead remanded the case to a federal district court. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part with the majority opinion and the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. [25]	See here too. Harris, the United States Supreme Court, which was decided on May 22, 2017, violates two of the two of the North Carolina Congress constituencies, which had been deducted after the 2010 US Census, to the voting rights Act. He supported the Federal District Court of Central District, North Carolina, assuming that illegal racial harassment was carried out. Judge Elena Kagan gave a lot of opinions, with Clarence Thomas, Judge Ruth Barder Ginsberg, Steven Blayer, and Judge Sonia Sotomaiyor joined this (Judge Thomas also submitted his opinion). In many opinions, Kagan explained the analysis of the tw o-part configuration used by the Supreme Court to assert racial hostility: First, the plaintiff, "A considerable number in a specific constituency. The dominant factor that motivated the legislature's decision to enter or not enter the voters was a race. " Second, if racial consideration is dominant than other consideration, the ward split must withstand strict scrutiny. Regarding the first part of the analysis mentioned above, Kagan further states that "plaintiffs will succeed at this stage, even if evidence reveals that the legislator has prioritized race." < SPAN> See also here. Harris, the United States Supreme Court, which was decided on May 22, 2017, violates two of the two of the North Carolina Congress constituencies, which had been deducted after the 2010 US Census, to the voting rights Act. He supported the Federal District Court of Central District, North Carolina, assuming that illegal racial harassment was carried out. Judge Elena Kagan gave a lot of opinions, with Clarence Thomas, Judge Ruth Barder Ginsberg, Steven Blayer, and Judge Sonia Sotomaiyor joined this (Judge Thomas also submitted his opinion). In many opinions, Kagan explained the analysis of the tw o-part configuration used by the Supreme Court to assert racial hostility: First, the plaintiff, "A considerable number in a specific constituency. The dominant factor that motivated the legislature's decision to enter or not enter the voters was a race. " Second, if racial consideration is dominant than other consideration, the ward split must withstand strict scrutiny. Regarding the first part of the analysis mentioned above, Kagan further states that "plaintiffs will succeed at this stage, even if evidence reveals that the legislator has prioritized race." See here too. Harris, the United States Supreme Court, which was decided on May 22, 2017, violates two of the two of the North Carolina Congress constituencies, which had been deducted after the 2010 US Census, to the voting rights Act. He supported the Federal District Court of Central District, North Carolina, assuming that illegal racial harassment was carried out. Judge Elena Kagan gave a lot of opinions, with Clarence Thomas, Judge Ruth Barder Ginsberg, Steven Blayer, and Judge Sonia Sotomaiyor joined this (Judge Thomas also submitted his opinion). In many opinions, Kagan explained the analysis of the tw o-part configuration used by the Supreme Court to assert racial hostility: First, the plaintiff, "A considerable number in a specific constituency. The dominant factor that motivated the legislature's decision to enter or not enter the voters was a race. " Second, if racial consideration is dominant than other consideration, the ward split must withstand strict scrutiny. Regarding the first part of the analysis mentioned above, Kagan further states that "plaintiffs will succeed at this stage, even if evidence reveals that the legislator has prioritized race."	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Judge Steven Brayer wrote a large number of Harris vs. Arizona's independent constituency.	Harris V. IRIZONA INDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HARRIS V. ARIZONA Indevelopmettion Commission has decided in 2016. It is. The issue was the constitutional constitutional constitution of the Ibon Congress created by the committee in 2012. According to the plaintiff's voter group, "while the committee intentionally and systematically overlook 16 Democratic constituencies, while undertaking 11 Democratic constituencies, nearly 2 million Arizona people. The votes were diluted or swollen. " The plaintiffs argued that this was a part y-like gerimander. The plaintiffs have argued that the committee had many voters other than minority in constituencies in the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the committee has argued that many minority voters have been placed in small constituencies that tend to vote for the Democratic Party. As a result, the plaintiffs have argued that the constituencies that are advantageous to the Republican Party have been placed more voters than the constituencies in the Democratic Party, and the Democratic constituencies have become thinner. The defendant argued that the mismatch of the population complied with the voting rights law and was the result of legal defense efforts to obtain the approval of the US Department of Justice. At the time of the ward change, some states were required to obtain prior approval from the U. S. Department of Justice before adopting other changes in the ward change plan and election law. In 2013, it was destroyed by the U. S. Supreme Supreme Court. On April 20, 2016, the court unanimously determined that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that the party's election had been held. Instead, the court determined that the committee had acted sincerely to comply with the voting law. The ruling was voted by Judge Steven Brayer. [33] [34] [35] < SPAN> ARIZONA IndEPENDENT COMMISSION HARRIS V. This is the case of the Supreme Court. The issue was the constitutional constitutional constitution of the Ibon Congress created by the committee in 2012. According to the plaintiff's voter group, "while the committee intentionally and systematically overlook 16 Democratic constituencies, while undertaking 11 Democratic constituencies, nearly 2 million Arizona people. The votes were diluted or swollen. " The plaintiffs argued that this was a part y-like gerimander. The plaintiffs have argued that the committee had many voters other than minority in constituencies in the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the committee has argued that many minority voters have been placed in small constituencies that tend to vote for the Democratic Party. As a result, the plaintiffs have argued that the constituencies that are advantageous to the Republican Party have been placed more voters than the constituencies in the Democratic Party, and the Democratic constituencies have become thinner. The defendant argued that the mismatch of the population complied with the voting rights law and was the result of legal defense efforts to obtain the approval of the US Department of Justice. At the time of the ward change, some states were required to obtain prior approval from the U. S. Department of Justice before adopting other changes in the ward change plan and election law. In 2013, it was destroyed by the U. S. Supreme Supreme Court. On April 20, 2016, the court unanimously determined that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that the party's election had been held. Instead, the court determined that the committee had acted sincerely to comply with the voting law. The ruling was voted by Judge Steven Brayer. Harris v. Arizona Independent RedEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HARRIS V. ARIZONA Indevellopment Commission is the best US United States. This is the case that the court ruled. The issue was the constitutional constitutional constitution of the Ibon Congress created by the committee in 2012. According to the plaintiff's voter group, "while the committee intentionally and systematically overlook 16 Democratic constituencies, while undertaking 11 Democratic constituencies, nearly 2 million Arizona people. The votes were diluted or swollen. " The plaintiffs argued that this was a part y-like gerimander. The plaintiffs have argued that the committee had many no n-minority voters in the constituency of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the committee has argued that many minority voters have been placed in small constituencies that tend to vote for the Democratic Party. As a result, the plaintiffs have argued that the constituencies that are advantageous to the Republican Party have been placed more voters than the constituencies in the Democratic Party, and the Democratic constituencies have become thinner. The defendant argued that the mismatch of the population complied with the voting rights law and was the result of legal defense efforts to obtain the approval of the US Department of Justice. At the time of the ward change, some states were required to obtain prior approval from the U. S. Department of Justice before adopting other changes in the ward change plan and election law. In 2013, it was destroyed by the U. S. Supreme Supreme Court. On April 20, 2016, the court unanimously determined that the plaintiffs could not prove that the party's election had been held. Instead, the court determined that the committee had acted sincerely to comply with the voting law. The ruling was voted by Judge Steven Brayer. [33] [34] [35]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
-Replaces the Civil Rights Act of 1965[40].	States and other political lo w-ranking organizations may provide a majority of areas with a majority of minorities in order to comply with Article 2 of the voting rights law. A area where the minority is the majority is a area where the minority is the majority of the total population. As of 2015, California has a majority of 40 minorities. [2] [3] [4] Supporters in the constituencies, which have a large number of minorities, divide these constituencies into multiple constituencies to prevent certain constituencies from becoming a majority in any constituency. He claims that it is a necessary barrier to prevent the "cracked" custom. In addition, the number of minority representatives in the state parliament and the Federal Congress has increased by setting a large number of constituencies. [2] [3] [4] On the other hand, the criticism is to set up a constituency that has a large number of minorities (by entering a constituency or constituency group in one constituency. It claims that it leads to minimizing the influence on other constituencies. Since the minority tends to vote for the Democratic Party, the constituency, which has a large number of minorities, criticizes that the Democratic Party's votes are integrated into one constituency, resulting in unfair advantages to the Republican Party. 。	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
While serving as a committee, you cannot be a stat e-government or federal staff, consultant, or contractor. Similar prohibited items are applied to the members of the committee.	In order to approve the ward split plan, nine of the 14 committee members must vote. These nine must include three Democrats, three Republican Party, and three who do not belong to any party. The map created by the committee can be overturned by a referendum. If a map is overturned by a referendum, the California Supreme Court must appoint a committee to create a new map. [41]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
See also: California congressional representatives	California has 52 congressional districts. The table below lists the current California congressional representatives.	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Party name	Date of inauguration	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2013	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	3 January 2013	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	US House of Representatives California District 8	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	3 January 3, 2023	See: Gerimander	US House of Representatives California District 11	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	US House of Representatives California District 8	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democrat	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2017	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 June 2024	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2017	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The 25th ward of California, USA	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	California, USA, 26th ward	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2013	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2013	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	July 11, 2017	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	US House of Representatives California District 8	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2015	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	US House of Representatives California District 8	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	3 January 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2013	See: Gerimander	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	The 40th ward California	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	The term gerrymandering refers to a party, individuals, and constituencies that are more advantageous than other political parties, individuals, and constituencies. When the opposition in a specific constituency uses rhetoric, the term has a negative meaning, but does not necessarily refer to the legitimacy of the gerrymander. This term may be used in legal documents. This context refers to a ward change that violates federal law or state law. [1] [15]	Racial Gerry Mandering refers to a constituency line to reduce the voting power of ethnic minorities. Federal Law stipulates that states and jurisdictions can establish a majority zone in order to ban racial gerimanders, compete with this practice, and to ensure the compliance with voting rights law. A large number of constituencies are constituencies in which a racial group accounts for a majority of the population of the constituency. This article discusses the gerimanding and a large number of racial gerimanding areas in this article. [16] A party gerimander refers to a comparison that draws a constituency map so that a political party is more advantageous than other political parties. Unlike racial gerimanding, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that such practices violate federal law in the past, but as of November 2017, the Supreme Court is such. I haven't made a judgment. The Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged that the part y-style gerimander could violate the United States Constitution, but has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring the part y-like gerimander. This article explains the part y-like gerimander in detail. [17] [18]	Click "[Show More]" below for other background information about gerimander.

State legislative maps

Democratic Party

3 January 2013

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

January 3, 2025

California House of Representatives 44th Ward

Enacted congressional district maps

Nanette Baragan

Democratic Party

January 3, 2017

California Congressional Districts until January 2, 2023

January 3, 2025

California Congressional Districts starting January 3, 2023

January 3, 2025

Reactions

Michel Steel

Democratic Party

2020 presidential results

3 January 2023

January 3, 2025
California, USA	Lou Korea		Democratic Party
California, USA	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	Federal House of Representatives California's 48th ward	Darrell Isa
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	Federal House of Representatives California 49th Ward	Mike Levin
Democratic Party	3 January 2019	January 3, 2025	Federal House of Representatives California's 50th ward	Scott Peters
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	Federal House of Representatives California 51st Ward	Sarah Jacobs
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	Federal House of Representatives California 52 Wards	Juan Wargas
Democratic Party	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	Related article: California Senate / House of Representatives	California has 40 Senate constituencies and 80 House of Representatives constituencies. Senator is elected to the party election every four years. State council members are elected every two years. Click here to access the state council constituency map adopted in the 2020 ward division cycle.
Please see here as well: California change in California after 2020	California has been assigned 52 seats. This is pure one seat compared to the distribution after the 2010 census. [42]	See: Federal parliamentary ward discount diagram implemented after 2020 census	The California Citizen Division Faller, on December 20, 2021, supported the new federal constituency map 14 to 0 and submitted the map to the Secretary of State on December 27, 2021. [5] [6] After the 2020 census, 52 seats were assigned to California, and one seat was pure one seat compared to the allocation after the 2010 census. The map was applied from the 2022 California general election.	The following is a parliamentary map that is applied before and after the ward change in 2020.
Click the area to compare the border.	Click on the constituency to compare the border.	Los Angeles Times Paper Cima Mita, Melanie Mason, and Jason Meyers wrote: "Nearly half of the 11 Republicans of the state have been good at 42 Democrats in the state." The ward turns blue. " [43] Population statistics, Don Thompson, an AP communication, created a new map of 16 lowe r-house constituencies with a Latin voting age population of over 50 %, and compared to the previous map. He wrote that the ward has increased by six. [44]	Adam Kinkade, Secretar y-General of the National Republican Republican Remodeling Trust, stated that "the" independent "reorganization committee in California has created a violent distorted line in Congress." A desperate attempt to protect the school, ignoring the California community. " [45] Shasha Ahmad, chairman who does not allow the committee's compromise, said: "We are not only accepting the opinions of the general public, but also larg e-scale education and outreach programs. He actively called for the participation of a wide range of citizens in the process. [46]	January 3, 2023
2020 Presidential election results (from California Congress Ward)	Constituency	48 2022 California Congress constituency	Former constituency	Joe Biden
Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	1st place California	39, 2%
58, 3%	41, 1%	56, 4%	2nd place California	73, 5%
24, 0%	73, 6%	23, 9%	3rd place California	47, 9%
49, 7%	46, 2%	51, 6%	January 3, 2023	67, 1%
30, 5%	72, 4%	25, 3%	5th place California	42, 7%
55, 0%	43, 9%	53, 7%	43, 9%	57, 9%
39, 4%	55, 6%	41, 9%	7th place California	67, 4%
30, 3%	27, 2%	Sarah Jacobs	76, 0%	22, 0%
54, 9%	42, 7%	9th place California	55, 2%	42, 6%
50, 3%	47, 4%	10th place California	27, 2%	29, 3%
74, 3%	23, 6%	11th place California	86, 3%	11, 7%
86, 1%	11, 9%	12th place California	89, 3%	8, 6%
88, 9%	9, 0%	13th place California	54, 3%	43, 4%
57, 9%	Federal House of Representatives California 52 Wards	Juan Wargas	71, 7%	26, 2%
71, 5%	26, 4%	15th place California	77, 7%	20, 4%
77, 7%	20, 5%	16th place California	75, 4%	13th place California
76, 4%	21, 3%	17th place California	72, 7%	25, 3%
72, 5%	25, 5%	January 3, 2023	26, 2%	Federal House of Representatives California 52 Wards
70, 0%	27, 9%	19th place California	68, 7%	29, 1%
72, 7%	25, 0%	20th place California	36, 4%	61, 3%
40, 5%	57, 1%	21st place California	59, 1%	The following is a parliamentary map that is applied before and after the ward change in 2020.
58, 8%	38, 9%	22nd place California	55, 3%	42, 3%
54, 4%	43, 5%	23rd place California	47, 4%	53, 7%
43, 6%	54, 0%	24th place California	89, 3%	8, 6%
60, 7%	36, 9%	25th place California	56, 7%	41, 4%
55, 9%	42, 3%	26th place California	58, 9%	39, 0%
61, 4%	42, 7%	9th place California	55, 1%	42, 7%
54, 0%	43, 9%	28th place California	66, 1%	31, 9%
67, 2%	30, 8%	29th place California	74, 5%	23, 2%
74, 1%	23, 7%	30th place California	72, 2%	26, 0%
70, 9%	27, 2%	31st place California	64, 5%	33, 4%
65, 2%	32, 8%	January 3, 2025	69, 5%	28, 7%
68, 7%	72, 4%	33rd place California	61, 5%	36, 2%
58, 8%	56, 7%	34th place California	81, 0%	16, 7%
80, 8%	16, 9%	35th place California	62, 7%	35, 1%
65, 1%	32, 6%	36th place California	January 3, 2025	26, 9%
69, 0%	30, 8%	37th place California	85, 7%	12, 4%
84, 3%	13, 8%	51, 6%	64, 1%	33, 9%
65, 6%	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025	62, 0%	28, 7%
61, 7%	64, 1%	40th place California	Constituency	48, 0%
54, 1%	44, 0%	41st place California	48, 6%	49, 7%
45, 3%	52, 7%	42nd place California	71, 7%	25, 9%
77, 1%	California has been assigned 52 seats. This is pure one seat compared to the distribution after the 2010 census. [42]	January 3, 2025	80, 8%	25, 9%

Enacted state legislative district maps

76, 9%

20, 9%

State Senate map

44th place California

California State Senate Districts before 2020 redistricting cycle

January 3, 2025

California State Senate Districts after 2020 redistricting cycle

January 3, 2025

State Assembly map

78, 4%

California State House Districts until December 4, 2022

January 3, 2025

California State House Districts starting December 5, 2022

January 3, 2025

Reactions

52, 1%

Enacted Board of Equalization district maps

46, 0%

49, 7%

48, 2%

Reaction

46th place California

Redistricting after the 2010 census

64, 1%

33, 7%

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

64, 3%

33, 5%

47th place California

54, 5%

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

43, 4%

54, 6%

43, 3%

Noteworthy events

2017-2019

Santa Clara, California

48th place California

42, 7%

Poway, California

55, 0%

45, 0%

“

52, 7%

”

49th place California

“

54, 6%

”

43, 2%

55, 2%

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

42, 5%

50th place California

65, 4%

Redistricting ballot measures

32, 2%

63, 4%

34, 2%
51st place California
62, 5%
35, 2%
67, 0%
30, 9%
52nd place California
67, 4%
30, 5%
66, 9%
30, 9%
See also: The state constituency map implemented after the 2020 census
The California Civil Citizen Division was decided on December 20, 2021 the new state and Senate constituency maps of 14 to 0, and on December 27, 2021, on December 27, 2021. [These maps will be valid from the 2022 California parliamentary election.
The following is a map of the State Sopare House of Representatives before and after the change in 2020.
Click on the constituency to compare the border.
Click on the district to compare the border.
The following is the state of the state trailer before and after the change in 2020.
Click on the area to compare the border.
Click the area to compare the border.
Following the 2020 elections, Democrats made big gains in both chambers of Congress. In the state Assembly, Democrats won 60 of 80 seats, Republicans 19, and Independents 1. In the Senate, Democrats won 31 of 40 seats, and Republicans won the remaining nine. CalMatters reporter Sameer Kamal wrote that the new map has 63 districts leaning Democratic, "which could squeeze the 'Democrat' in the state Senate."[49] Kamal added that with three districts leaning Democratic and voter registration leaning Democratic, "the Democrats' majority in the state Senate could shrink." [49] In terms of demographics, Don Thompson of the Associated Press writes that the new maps have 22 congressional districts and 11 senate districts with more than 50% Latino voting age, an increase of six and four districts, respectively, from the previous maps. [50]

Recent news

The California Civic Redevelopment Commission voted 14-0 on December 20, 2021, to approve the new State Board of Equalization Equalization District Map, and delivered it to the Secretary of State on December 27. [5] [6] The Board of Equalization is a state administrative agency divided into four districts, each of which elects one member. The Board administers various taxes and oversees county property tax assessments. The charter went into effect for the 2022 California Equalization Election.

External links

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and doctoral students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote: "Several studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. Brad and Dowd argue that the results are positive, negative, or both." [53]
In 2011, Santa Clara University political science professor James Cottrill published a study on the effect of non-legislative approaches (independent commissions, political committees, etc.) on the competitiveness of redistricting in congressional elections. Cottrill found that "certain (non-legislative) approaches encourage the emergence of experienced and well-funded challengers in congressional elections." However, Cottrill cautions that non-legislative approaches "do not contribute to lower voter turnout when the incumbent wins an election, nor do they increase the likelihood of defeat."[54] There are conflicting views on the correlation between party ridicule and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, wrote: "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbents cooperate to defend their seats, reducing competition in the political system."[52]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and doctoral students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote: "Several studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. Brad and Dowd argue that the results are positive, negative, or both." [53]
In 2011, Santa Clara University political science professor James Cottrill published a study on the effect of non-legislative approaches (independent commissions, political committees, etc.) on the competitiveness of redistricting in congressional elections. Cottrill found that "certain (non-legislative) approaches encourage the emergence of experienced and well-funded challengers in congressional elections." However, Cottrill cautions that nonlegislative approaches "do not contribute to lower voter turnout or increase the likelihood of an incumbent's defeat when the incumbent wins an election."[54]
In 2021, John Johnson, a researcher of the Market University Public Policy Research and Policy Education Center, examined the political geographical relationship in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Republican Party has dominated the two houses in the state parliament since 2010, but has all voted for the Democratic Party, except in the 1988 presidential election. After analyzing the results of the state election after 2000, Johnson wrote: "In 2000, 42 % of the Democratic Party supporters and 36 % of Republican supporters lived in areas where other parties won. 20 years later, 43 % of the Democratic Party lived in a place where Trump won, but only 28 % of the Republican members lived in a minority that was not competitive.

Footnotes

See also the winning rate of the state assembly election.
In 2014, the polling place was the last year when the regional map was adopted after the 2000 census, and in 2012, the first year when the regional map was implemented after the 2010 census. , 44 state council conducted a survey on competition in constituencies. Opinion polls showed that the issue of the 2012 general election was 61 constituencies than 2010. The number of election campaigns has decreased in the 25th ward of the 44 wards. It was 17 wards that increased. Overall, 16, 2 % of the 3, 842 legislative councils were surveyed in 2010, but in 2012, the general election was held in 14, 6 %. I was. The election was considered a competitive election if the winning rate was less than 5 %. Elections, which won with 5 % to 10 % win rate, were considered somewhat competitive. See this article for details of this report, such as methodology.
The California Congress election in 2012 was four for two elections in 2010. In 2012, the same five election games were held in 2010. This is equivalent to the tw o-race net increase. < SPAN> In 2021, researcher John Johnson, a researcher of the University of Market University Policy and Policy Education Center, examined the relationship between political parties and political geography in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Republican Party has dominated the two houses in the state parliament since 2010, but has all voted for the Democratic Party, except in the 1988 presidential election. After analyzing the results of the state election after 2000, Johnson wrote: "In 2000, 42 % of the Democratic Party supporters and 36 % of Republican supporters lived in areas where other parties won. 20 years later, 43 % of the Democratic Party lived in a place where Trump won, but only 28 % of the Republican members lived in a minority that was not competitive.
See also the winning rate of the state assembly election.
In 2014, the polling place was the last year when the regional map was adopted after the 2000 census, and in 2012, the first year when the regional map was implemented after the 2010 census. , 44 state council conducted a survey on competition in constituencies. Opinion polls showed that the issue of the 2012 general election was 61 constituencies than 2010. The number of election campaigns has decreased in the 25th ward of the 44 wards. It was 17 wards that increased. Overall, 16, 2 % of the 3, 842 legislative councils were surveyed in 2010, but in 2012, the general election was held in 14, 6 %. I was. The election was considered a competitive election if the winning rate was less than 5 %. Elections, which won with 5 % to 10 % win rate, were considered somewhat competitive. See this article for details of this report, such as methodology.
The California Congress election in 2012 was four for two elections in 2010. In 2012, the same five election games were held in 2010. This is equivalent to the tw o-race net increase. In 2021, John Johnson, a researcher of the Market University Public Policy Research and Policy Education Center, examined the political geographical relationship in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Republican Party has dominated the two houses in the state parliament since 2010, but has all voted for the Democratic Party, except in the 1988 presidential election. After analyzing the results of the state election after 2000, Johnson wrote: "In 2000, 42 % of the Democratic Party supporters and 36 % of Republican supporters lived in areas where other parties won. 20 years later, 43 % of the Democratic Party lived in a place where Trump won, but only 28 % of the Republican members lived in a minority that was not competitive.
See also the winning rate of the state assembly election.
In 2014, the polling place was the last year when the regional map was adopted after the 2000 census, and in 2012, the first year when the regional map was implemented after the 2010 census. , 44 state council conducted a survey on competition in constituencies. Opinion polls showed that the issue of the 2012 general election was 61 constituencies than 2010. The number of election campaigns has decreased in the 25th ward of the 44 wards. It was 17 wards that increased. Overall, 16, 2 % of the 3, 842 legislative councils were surveyed in 2010, but in 2012, the general election was held in 14, 6 %. I was. The election was considered a competitive election if the winning rate was less than 5 %. Elections, which won with 5 % to 10 % win rate, were considered somewhat competitive. See this article for details on this report, such as methodology.
The California Congress election in 2012 was four for two elections in 2010. In 2012, the same five election games were held in 2010. This is equivalent to the tw o-race net increase.
On May 15, 2018, Judge Thomas E. Kunle from the Santa Clara County of the Santa Clara district published the proposed application for a decision in the case of Kaku against the city of Santa Clara, according to which the system of universal elections to the City Council is violated by the California Electoral Rights Law (CVRA). CVRA provides that the universal election system "cannot be introduced or implemented in a way that limits the possibility of a protected class to elect candidates." The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a group of Asia-American voters (secure class according to CVRA), argue that the universal election system in the city council of Santa Clara does not allow them to elect candidates at their choice. Kunle agreed with this, writing the following in his decision: “Based on the evidence presented during the trial, the court believes that the plaintiffs with a high superiority of evidence found that the general method used by the city limits the possibility of Asian to elect candidates as a result of erosion and restrictions on restrictions their rights as voters. " The parties to the claim have 15 days to file objections to the decision proposed by Kunle before it is finally approved. [56] [57]
2018 年 6 月 5 日、サンタクララ市民は、市議会の議席を 2 地区制の順位選択選挙制にするための市憲章修正案を投票した。クーンレ氏の最終決定が、修正案の投票にどのような影響を与えるか、どのように関与するかは不明であっ。。
2017 年 10 月 4 日、カリフォルニア州パウエイ在住登録有権者であるドン・ヒギンソン氏は、州司法長官ザビエル・ベセラ氏民主党）と市相手取り、州州南部連邦裁判所に提訴し、た、 " カリフォルニア州選挙権法（cvra）に制定された同市のゾーニングマップ（（（））が合衆憲法憲法平等保護条項違反しいるとしいる。2017 年 8 月日パウエイ市議会はををつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつつ投票区に分割することを 5 対 0 で決定した。同議会は 2017 年 6 月 7 日、ケビン・シェンクマン弁護士から「パウエイ市の一般選挙制度は、ラテン系住民が希望する候補者を選出したり、パウエイ市議会選挙の結果にを与えたりする能力をさせる」と主張する書簡をに提出され、、違反のを指摘されことが発端とた。2017 年 10 月 3 日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日日 3 議会は 133 憲章を制定するを採択したパウウェイパウウェイの 2018 年市議選はは 133 憲章使用して実施された。 [58]
Higinson's complaint has made the following objection to the MAP133 and CVRA legal.
Under the CVRA, local governments are special, regardless of whether the minority group is large enough to be geographically compact in the constituency if racially biased voting. The voting system must be abandoned. Therefore, CVRA is clearly violated by Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. This "type of voter" does not serve "unavoidable profit", nor "narrowly adjusted". Higinson lives in the second ward and votes with racial ridicule because of the ward divided by . cvra. Therefore, Higinson has filed a lawsuit to defend the constitutional rights based on Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. [9]
Higinson made an unconstitutional of the California voting law and 133 Charter, and asked the court to stop the enforcement. The court made an oral argument on January 12, 2018. On February 23, 2018, Judge William Hayes made a disadvantageous judgment against Higinson and dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. Judge Haye stated in court as follows: [58]
After the MAP133 was enacted, the fact that Higinson could no longer vote for the Upper House election in three of the four areas was based on potential cases in equality lawsuits, and constituted "legal infringement of profits". Assuming that there is a possibility, Higinson must argue that the damage is "considerably possible" in the requirements imposed on the city by the CVRA. The city argues that it did not adopt elections from constituencies to comply with the requirements imposed by the CVRA, but received a request from a private person to avoid the lawsuit expenses and adopted elections in the constituency. The court does not claim enough to support the decisions to be postponed to the election, and no damage to Higginson is "considerable tracking" for claims imposed on the city by CVRA. I concluded. [9] < SPAN> Higinson's complaint has made the following arguments against MAP133 and CVRA's legal.
Under the CVRA, local governments are special, regardless of whether the minority group is large enough to be geographically compact in the constituency if racially biased voting. The voting system must be abandoned. Therefore, CVRA is clearly violated by Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. This "type of voter" does not serve "unavoidable profit", nor "narrowly adjusted". Higinson lives in the second ward and votes with racial ridicule because of the ward divided by . cvra. Therefore, Higinson has filed a lawsuit to defend the constitutional rights based on Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. [9]
Higinson made an unconstitutional of the California voting law and 133 Charter, and asked the court to stop the enforcement. The court made an oral argument on January 12, 2018. On February 23, 2018, Judge William Hayes made a disadvantageous judgment against Higinson and dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. Judge Haye stated in court as follows: [58]
After the MAP133 was enacted, the fact that Higinson could no longer vote for the Upper House election in three of the four areas was based on potential cases in equality lawsuits, and constituted "legal infringement of profits". Assuming that there is a possibility, Higinson must argue that the damage is "considerably possible" in the requirements imposed on the city by the CVRA. The city argues that it did not adopt elections from constituencies to comply with the requirements imposed by the CVRA, but received a request from a private person to avoid the lawsuit expenses and adopted elections in the constituency. The court does not claim enough to support the decisions to be postponed to the election, and no damage to Higginson is "considerable tracking" for claims imposed on the city by CVRA. I concluded. [9] Higinson's complaint has made the following objection to MAP133 and CVRA's legal.
Under the CVRA, local governments are special, regardless of whether the minority group is large enough to be geographically compact in the constituency if racially biased voting. The voting system must be abandoned. Therefore, CVRA is clearly violated by Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. This "type of voter" does not serve "unavoidable profit", nor "narrowly adjusted". Higinson lives in the second ward and votes with racial ridicule because of the ward divided by . cvra. Therefore, Higinson has filed a lawsuit to defend the constitutional rights based on Article 14 of the Constitutional Fix. [9]
Higinson made an unconstitutional of the California voting law and 133 Charter, and asked the court to stop the enforcement. The court made an oral argument on January 12, 2018. On February 23, 2018, Judge William Hayes made a disadvantageous judgment against Higinson and dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. Judge Haye stated in court as follows: [58]
After the MAP133 was enacted, the fact that Higinson could no longer vote for the Upper House election in three of the four areas was based on potential cases in equality lawsuits, and constituted "legal infringement of profits". Assuming that there is a possibility, Higinson must argue that the damage is "considerably possible" in the requirements imposed on the city by the CVRA. The city argues that it did not adopt elections from constituencies to comply with the requirements imposed by the CVRA, but received a request from a private person to avoid the lawsuit expenses and adopted elections in the constituency. The court does not claim enough to support the decisions to be postponed to the election, and no damage to Higginson is "considerable tracking" for claims imposed on the city by CVRA. I concluded. [9]
On February 27, 2018, Higginson filed a motion for a stay of appeal. On April 5, 2018, Hayes entered an order denying the motion. On April 24, 2018, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Higginson's motion for an emergency injunction against the California Voting Rights Act. The Court set an expedited timeline for the appeal, setting an April 30, 2018 deadline for opening briefs (by Higginson) and a May 14, 2018 deadline for answer briefs (by Becerra and the City of Poway). On June 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that Higginson lacked standing to sue the city and the Attorney General. On August 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing the case.[60][61][62][63]
On August 2, 2018, Higginson sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the BAR from using the contested maps in elections until the case was resolved. On October 2, 2018, Judge William Q. Hayes denied the motion, finding that Higginson "has not sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims or irreparable harm such that injunctive relief is unavailable." On February 4, 2019, Hayes issued a decision in the case, dismissing Higginson's challenge to the CVRA. In his decision, Hayes wrote: "The Court finds Mr. Higginson's allegations to be true, draws reasonable inferences in his favor, and finds that he has not stated a claim of racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny analysis under the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Higginson has not stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the complaint must be dismissed." Higginson appealed Hayes' ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On December 4, 2019, a three-judge appellate panel including Judges Mary Murguia, Andrew Hurwitz, and Luis Guirola upheld Hayes' ruling and dismissed the appeal. The Court wrote: "Plaintiffs' allegations do not trigger strict scrutiny and have not alleged that the City lacked a reasonable basis for its actions, and therefore Plaintiffs have not stated a claim. View State Election Law Below is a list of redistricting bills recently introduced or passed in the California Legislature. Click on the bill title for more information about each bill. This information is provided by BillTrack50.
Note: Due to the nature of the sort process used to create this list, some results may not be related to the topic. If the bill is not displayed below, the bill related to this topic has not been submitted to Congress recently.
See: Division change measures and voting measures related to voting in California
The voting tracked the following voting measures related to California's ward change.
California Proposal No. 118, Change of Division Change Procedure and Legal Ethics Initiative (June 1990)
California Proposal No. 119, Citizen's Division Committee concept (June 1990)
Changing California Proposal No. 77, Change of legislation and parliamentary initiative (2005)
California Proposal No. 20 "Congress Reconstruction Initiative" (2010)
California Proposal No. 40, Resident's Testament Plan for State Sopare Reward (2012)
California Proposal No. 27, abolition of the Citizen's Reconstruction Committee Initiative (2010)
California Proposal No. 20, Configuration of Reconstruction Committee (1926)
California Proposal No. 28, legislative r e-approval initiative (1926)
California No. 18 proposal, r e-election committee revision committee (1942)
California Proposal No. 23, California Senator Initiative Initiative (1962)
California State Proposal No. 39, California Revisit Committee Initiative (1984)
California Councilors Remodeling Resident Record Initiative (June 1982) California Proposal No. 12
California No. 11 proposal, Senate reorganization referendum (June 1982)
California Proposal No. 10 Parliamentary Refracting Law (June 1982)
California No. 14 proposal, the Reconstruction Committee Initiative (1982)
California No. 6 proposal, revision of r e-waving regulations (June 1980)
California's first proposal, parliamentary reconstruction municipalities (1928)
Established the 11th proposal of California, the California Citizens Revitalization Initia Chib Committee (2008)
California No. 13 proposal, Senate District Initiative (1948)
California No. 15 proposal, Senate Elementary District Initiative (1960)
The following links are linked to the latest articles in Google search for terms about California District. These results are automatically generated by Google. Opinion polls do not purge or support these articles.
2020 Country Survey
California's first proposal, parliamentary reconstruction municipalities (1928)
Ward split change
Division division change procedure by state
Major wards
State Parliament and Federal Congress after the 2010 Census
The winning rate of the state assembly election before and after 2010 Census
Winning rate analysis of the 2014 lower hospital election
All of the redistribution
Dave redistribution
FiveThirtyeight "The state of the r e-division of each state
The National Congress Conference, "Division Change Process"
Fairvote, "Division change"
↑ ^ 1. 01. All of the ward discounts, "Why important?" April 8, 2015 Access
↑ 2. 02. 2. 22. 3 Indy Week, "Cracked, Stacked and Packed: Initial Redistricting Maps Hast with Skepticism and DismemeMey", JUNE 29, 2011
↑ 3. 03. 13. 23. 3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities", 17 JUNE 2013
↑ 4. 04. 14. 24. 3 redrazing the line, "The Role of Section 2-Majority Minority District", Accessed April 6, 2015

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

The California elections will take place on November 5, The statewide direct primary election was held on March 5, Low Voter Turnout, Who Voted?, Proposition 1, United States Senate, State Assembly, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange County. On the Ballot with Ballotpedia connects people to politics by providing neutral, nonpartisan, and reliable information on our government, how it works.

Play

accepted

Redistricting in California - Ballotpedia

Redistricting in California

Background

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

State-based requirements

Methods

Gerrymandering

Recent court decisions

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

Moore v. Harper (2023)

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

Race and ethnicity

State process

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

District maps

Congressional districts

State legislative maps

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

Enacted congressional district maps

California Congressional Districts until January 2, 2023

California Congressional Districts starting January 3, 2023

Reactions

2020 presidential results

Enacted state legislative district maps

State Senate map

California State Senate Districts before 2020 redistricting cycle

California State Senate Districts after 2020 redistricting cycle

State Assembly map

California State House Districts until December 4, 2022

California State House Districts starting December 5, 2022

Reactions

Enacted Board of Equalization district maps

Reaction

Redistricting after the 2010 census

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

Noteworthy events

2017-2019

Santa Clara, California

Poway, California

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

Redistricting ballot measures

Recent news

See also

External links

Footnotes