Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
3. If no federal statute is applicable, which of the following facts, if proven, would most strongly support the validity of the action of the state reapportionment board?
A registered voter, who is Black and is a resident of the city, brings suit in an appropriate court against the members of the state reapportionment board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the boundary lines of the state legislative districts in the greater metropolitan area be redrawn. His only claim is that the current reapportionment violates the Fifteenth Amendment because it improperly dilutes the voting power of the Black residents who reside in that area.
The constitution of a state authorizes a five-member state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every ten years. In the last state legislative reapportionment, the board, by a unanimous vote, divided the greater metropolitan area, composed of a large city and several contiguous townships, into three equally populated state legislative districts. The result of that districting was that 40% of the area's total Black population resided in one of those districts, 45% of the area's total Black population resided in the second of those districts, and 15% resided in the third district.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Government programs that attempt to assist racial or ethnic minorities in an explicitly race- or ethnically-conscious way will also invoke strict scrutiny just as if it were a regulation that purposefully disadvantages a minority group. As such, race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing the boundaries of a voting district unless the district plan can pass muster under strict scrutiny. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
A is correct. This choice offers the strongest support for the validity of the reapportionment board's actions because it is not based on race, which would have triggered strict scrutiny review. Because this reasoning for the board's actions is based on the state constitutional requirements, it is more likely to be upheld under a lesser standard of review.
B is incorrect. The number of White and/or Black members of the reapportionment board is irrelevant to determining whether race was used as a basis for redrawing the voting districts.
C is incorrect. Similarly, the number or percentage of Black legislators elected during the past 15 years is irrelevant to whether the reapportionment board used race as the basis for redrawing the voting districts.
D is incorrect. The primary issue is whether race was used in redrawing the voting districts, and the percentage of the population that is Black in no way establishes whether the board did so.