. Advocates for the map say that’s because it undoes decades of partisan gerrymandering and reflects changes in population that benefited Democrat-heavy areas.
He later filed one of the legal challenges against the final plan, claiming the state House map infringed upon the Voting Rights Act by disregarding the traditional redistricting criteria outlined in the Pennsylvania Constitution — like ensuring equal population in districts — and considering race as a dominant factor.
“[The final map] subordinates the nonpartisan redistricting criteria for purely partisan purposes. In doing so, it creates violence to the constitution,” Benninghoff said before voting against the final plan. “That is the very definition of the termThe panel’s nonpartisan chair, Mark Nordenberg, ex-chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, strenuously pushed back on Benninghoff’s claims, pointing to the House map’s superior scoring in the traditional criteria as compared with the current one.
“Rather than arguing that a voter’s vote should not be diluted based on where the voter lives, Leader Benninghoff instead argues that voters who vote for Democratic candidates should have less of a say in the makeup of the General Assembly because those voters have chosen to pack themselves in cities,” he wrote.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: PennLive - 🏆 463. / 53 Read more »
Source: PennLive - 🏆 463. / 53 Read more »