[142]: 916 [143]: 621 If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then
the redistricting plan is considered «racially gerrymandered» and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest.
If the courts are called upon to review the current district lines and
the redistricting plans being considered, this bill would require that the court assess which plan most faithfully serves the following criteria:
Not exact matches
After the
redistricting plan went to the Supreme Court, only one district
was found to
be unconstitutionally gerrymandered, a decision that
was considered a defeat by several groups.
Daniel Chill, representing the Assembly Democrats, also argued for the prerogative of incumbents, saying it
's «state policy» based on decades of
redistricting plans that
considered the existing legislators, and that the court could perhaps make it a significant factor without «putting it at the top of the list.»