Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 38 of 48 <br />Ell <br />Preserving Local PalitiC31 Subdivisions <br />ua4.n LU rnyc I <br />Language aimed at minimizing the crossing of city, county, town, and other municipal <br />boundaries is second only to contiguity requirements in state co111stitutions[9]. Local <br />subdivisions are profoundly affected by the legislative and congressional boundaries they <br />reside in. To promote unity within localities, states seek to minimize splitting subdivisions <br />among several districts whenever possible. Redistricting plans that do split local subdivisions <br />excessively are generally deemed inferior and in some cases, evidence of unconstitutional <br />gerrymandering -[10] <br />PreservingCummunities of Interest <br />Communities of interest is perhaps the least measurable and most subjective of court <br />recognized traditional districting principles- At least 21 states expressly encourage in their <br />constitutions or statutes; maintaining communities of interest when redrawing district lines.[11] <br />There is no formal definition for the term exoept to say that it refers to readily identifiable <br />communities of like-minded individuals- The Supreme Court refers to communities that have <br />some common thread of relevant interests.[1]a As a practical matter, this goal is usually <br />subordinated to the previous three principles. <br />Protecting Incumbents and the Cores of Prior districts <br />Incumbency protection and the closely related objective of maintaining the cores of previous <br />districts are considered an allowable political consideration by courts, but only on a cautionary <br />basis.[13] The rationale is that incumbents made to run against each other in newly drawn <br />districts - while unavoidable in some cases - is disruptive to the political process when done <br />excessively. Preserving the inner cores of districts is also considered to be less disruptive to the <br />voter inside of those districts. <br />These two principles are almost always subordinated to the previous principles and there is <br />much disagreement on whether incumbents should be considered in the line drawing process. <br />Moreover, there are various arguments against the preservation of a districting scheme that is <br />inferior, gerrymandered, or otherwise objectionable. Thus, these two principles stand on the <br />least firm ground both in practice and in the law. <br />363 <br />