[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf

上传人:任我行 文档编号:28024 上传时间:2022-06-24 发布时间:2019-04-12 格式:PDF 页数:7 大小:626.83KB
下载 相关 举报
[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共7页
[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共7页
[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共7页
[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共7页
[20190318]LSB10276_最高法院再次考虑党派划分选区:影响和立法选择.pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共7页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述

1、CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i Supreme Court Once Again Considers Partisan Gerrymandering: Implications and Legislative Options March 18, 2019 Is there a standard for determining whether a redistricting map is an unconstitutional parti

2、san gerrymander? Or, do claims of partisan gerrymandering raise political questions that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a federal court (i.e., are non-justiciable)? On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two casesone from Maryland (Lamone v. Benisek) and another from North C

3、arolina (Rucho v. Common Cause)presenting these questions. In Lamone and Rucho, the Court is presented with the issue of partisan gerrymandering for the second consecutive term. Last year, the Supreme Court considered claims of partisan gerrymandering raising nearly identical questions to those curr

4、ently before the Court, but ultimately issued narrow rulings on procedural grounds specific to those cases. Last years rulings were only the latest in which the Court considered, but ultimately did not directly answer, the question of whether a standard exists for ascertaining unconstitutional parti

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索
资源标签

当前位置:首页 > 法规条令 > CRS 美国国会研究处报告