Race and Redistricting in the 1990s by Lisa Handley

Page Updated:
Book Views: 45

Author
Lisa Handley
Publisher
Agathon Press
Date of release
Pages
405
ISBN
9780875861234
Binding
Hardcover
Illustrations
Format
PDF, EPUB, MOBI, TXT, DOC
Rating
3
33

Advertising

Get eBOOK
Race and Redistricting in the 1990s

Find and Download Book

Click one of share button to proceed download:
Choose server for download:
Download
Get It!
File size:3 mb
Estimated time:5 min
If not downloading or you getting an error:
  • Try another server.
  • Try to reload page — press F5 on keyboard.
  • Clear browser cache.
  • Clear browser cookies.
  • Try other browser.
  • If you still getting an error — please contact us and we will fix this error ASAP.
Sorry for inconvenience!
For authors or copyright holders
Amazon Affiliate

Go to Removal form

Leave a comment

Book review

THE ROLE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, voting rights questions, and the most important legal issues related to race and redistricting seemed largely settled in the light of Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). All that changed dramatically in the mid-1990s. Whether we assign the principal reason for this change as outrage at the shape of some of the 1990s' districts that were carefully crafted to make the election of minority candidates near certain, or racist backlash to the dramatic minority gains in descriptive representation that occurred in 1992 and earlier, or simply the inevitable spillover into the voting rights arena of the ongoing discontent of the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court with earlier Courts' uses of the Civil War Amendments as a justification for various kinds of affirmative action, there can be no doubt that the previously arcane issue of districting became part of both the legal and political agenda in a way that it had not been since the years immediately following Baker v. Carr. The aim of this volume is to contribute to both the public and scholarly debate about voting rights and race and redistricting by focusing on the "on the ground" realities rather than on discussion of constitutional jurisprudence in the abstract.


Readers reviews