How fair is the congressional redistricting process Dissertation

How fair is the congressional redistricting process - Dissertation ExampleAccording to Hirsch (2003), the current congressional redistricting process veers significantly from the ideals proposed by the master copy Framers of the United States Constitution. These individuals created the House of Representatives, which was designed to both stand apart from the Senate, Presidency, and imperious Court, as well as mediate these governmental entities. The 2001-2002 congressional redistricting efforts revealed the strong partizan bias that many critics contend is skewing redistricting maps and misrepresenting the peoples true sentiments. Unfortunately, Hirsch (2003) argues that there is no easy cure for the biases in the congressional redistricting process. As long as a bipartizan system dominates pubic thought, redistricting will always favor one political side or the other in a given verbalize. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene with gerrymanders that prevent follower bia ses, although state legislation must limit the extent to which redistricting reflects political factors on their own, rather than economic and amicable factors. McDonald (2004) notes that redistricting continues to be one of the most prevalent and contentious campaigns in the American political system. The United States utilizes multiple redistricting institutions, McDonald notes, which can be categorized into two types. First, virtually institutions engage in redistricting that follows normal legislative processes, and second, there are those that enact by way of a redistricting commission. In the former, one party tends to control state government and the redistricting process results in a political gerrymander. With the latter, commissions engage in take and compromise to draw districting boundaries. Regardless of the redistricting institution, McDonald argues that with so much at stake, those mingled in the redistricting process often behave in a one-sided fashion. Congressi onal redistricting will always result in either a partisan gerrymander, a bipartisan incumbent protection plan, or court intervention (McDonald, 2004). Karlan (2002) contends that the Supreme Court has been unwilling to apply any form of strict interrogation in the past with regard to congressional redistricting and when faced with the prospect of re-segregating state legislatures and congressional delegations. In addition to partisan concerns, redistricting has been also driven by racial motivations and other minority-based social factors. According to Karlan (2002), the U.S. Constitution demands that states arrange electoral institutions to reduce any existing effects of prior redistricting discrimination. Such electoral districting promotes a racially-polarized voting pattern that undermines needs of minority racial groups. The Supreme Court is responsible for confront these discrimination sin the redistricting process and to promote an electoral system that is cave in to membe rs of minority groups. The current flaws in the congressional redistricting process within the United States have caused the issue of fairness to be called into question. Fairness is a key divisor of congressional redistricting, as it reflects general American values and has far-reaching implications within the population. The concept of fairness is one that