IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v32y2002i4p51-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Post-2000 Round of Redistricting: An Entangled Thicket within the Federal System

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Engstrom

Abstract

A new round of revisions in the geographical districts used to elect federal, state, and local legislators in the United States has followed the 2000 census of population. While legislators themselves typically have the initial responsibility to perform this frequently contentious task, courts play an active supervisory role as well. This article reviews how United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the post-1990 round of redistricting have resulted in the rules concerning the design of districts being more ambiguous in this post-2000 round. This, it is argued, enhances the opportunity to gerrymander for partisan or other political reasons, a practice that is virtually immune to judicial invalidation. The article also notes the more active role of state courts in this process. The districting process now involves not only competing districting plans, but more often than in previous rounds, competing courts as well. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L. Engstrom, 2002. "The Post-2000 Round of Redistricting: An Entangled Thicket within the Federal System," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 32(4), pages 51-70, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:32:y:2002:i:4:p:51-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:32:y:2002:i:4:p:51-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.