1992 Precinct Boundary Change Information

Home

language .inori~y makes it possible, ~he cSistric~s must increa.. ~he probabili~y ~ha~ .-bers of ~he minori~y will be el~ed. Ally plan adopted by ~he court shall coaaply wi~h ~he applicable provisiou of ~he Federal v~ing Jligh~s Ac~, 42 u.s.c. S 1971, et: sea. 8. The dis~ricts will be drawn wi~h a~~en~ion ~o county, ci~y and ~OWI'lship boundaries. A coun~y, ci~y, or ~OWI'lship will no~ be divided into more ~han one dis~rict except .s necessary ~o _~' equal popula~ion requir_n~s or ~o fora dis~ricts. ~~ are composed of convenien~, contiguous and compact terri~ory. When any county, city or ~OWI'lship must: be divided in~o one or more dis~ricts, i~ will be divided in~o as few dis~ric~s as prac~icable. Ravnolds v. Sims, 377 u.S. 533, 578-79, 84 S. ct. 1362, 1390-91 (1964), SWaftft v. Adams, 385 u.S. 440, 444, 87 S. ct. 569, 572 (1967). 9. The dis~ric~s should at~empt ~o Preserve communi~ies of in~eres~ when ~ha~ can be done in coaapliance wi~h ~he preceding standards. The panel may recognize a community's character as urban, suburban or rural. .Ia Skolnick v. St:at:e Blect:oral ad. of Ill., 336 1'. Supp. 839 (N.D. Ill. 1971), LaCnmh v. Growe, 541 1'. Supp. 145 (D. Hia. 1982), LaComb v. Growe, 541 1'. Supp. 160 (D. Hia. 1982)1 Maryland Cit:izens CoIIlIIl. for Pair Conar.ssional Redist:rict:ina. Inc. v. Tawes, 253 1'. Supp. 731 (D. Md. 19661, aff'd' sub. nom. Alt:on v. Taves, 384 u.S. 315, 86 S. ct. 1590 (1966) . Additional COlllDuni~ies of in~eres~ shall be considered if persuasively est:ablished and 1'lO~ in viola~ion of applicable case law. 10. Pas~ voting behavior and residency of incumben~s shall no~ be used as criteria, however, they may be used to evaluate the fairness of plans sul:lmit:t:ed to t:he court. 13. Subsequently, the panel adopted an additional criterion that all submitted plans should be based on Chapter 246. Defendant-intervenors, joined by other parties, urqed the panel to adopt, as a criterion, certain "curative amendments" to -6-