In general, ________ redistricting is considered constitutional by the courts, but ________ redistricting is considered unconstitutional by the courts.
a. race-based; partisan
b. partisan; race-based
c. race-based; non-partisan
d. non-partisan; partisan
Although it should be B but I am confused to what my book is saying..
It should be b.
Should be? or IS?
Isnt it unconstitutional to have partisan redistricting in Texas?
To determine the correct answer, we need to understand the concepts of race-based and partisan redistricting, and how they are viewed by the courts in terms of constitutionality.
1. Race-based redistricting: This refers to the practice of drawing district boundaries based on race or ethnicity. The purpose of race-based redistricting is to create districts that ensure minority communities have representation and their voting rights are protected.
2. Partisan redistricting: This refers to the practice of drawing district boundaries to favor one political party over another. The purpose of partisan redistricting is to gain a political advantage by manipulating the boundaries in a way that maximizes the electoral support for one party.
Now, let's evaluate the options:
a. Race-based; partisan: According to the statement, race-based redistricting is considered constitutional by the courts, while partisan redistricting is considered unconstitutional. This aligns with your initial understanding, so it seems like a logical answer.
b. Partisan; race-based: This option presents the reverse scenario, suggesting that partisan redistricting is considered constitutional, while race-based redistricting is considered unconstitutional. This contradicts our understanding, so this option can be ruled out.
c. Race-based; non-partisan: This option suggests that race-based redistricting is considered constitutional, while non-partisan redistricting is considered unconstitutional. However, the courts generally support non-partisan redistricting, as it aims to create fair and balanced district boundaries without favoring any political party.
d. Non-partisan; partisan: This option suggests that non-partisan redistricting is considered constitutional, while partisan redistricting is considered unconstitutional. This aligns with the general view of courts, as they often scrutinize partisan redistricting for potential violations of equal protection and voting rights.
Considering these explanations, the correct answer is likely option a: race-based redistricting is considered constitutional by the courts, while partisan redistricting is considered unconstitutional. However, it's important to consult your textbook or additional sources to confirm the specific viewpoint being presented.