{"id":22485,"date":"2024-06-27T08:40:54","date_gmt":"2024-06-27T12:40:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/?post_type=article&p=22485"},"modified":"2024-08-30T08:41:29","modified_gmt":"2024-08-30T12:41:29","slug":"rucho-revisited-5-takeaways-on-the-5-year-anniversary","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articles\/rucho-revisited-5-takeaways-on-the-5-year-anniversary\/","title":{"rendered":"Rucho revisitado: 5 conclusiones del quinto aniversario"},"template":"","class_list":["post-22485","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-article"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"On the fifth year anniversary of Rucho v. Common Cause, we reflect on the five most important takeaways from the decision, its impact, and the road ahead.","featured_image":"","article_type":11,"authors":"","related_issues":[103,2066],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":"","name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":"","component_wysiwyg":{"content":"Rucho contra Causa Com\u00fan\u00a0<\/b>\r\n\r\nEn 2019, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos emiti\u00f3 una de las decisiones m\u00e1s perjudiciales para la democracia. Rucho contra Causa Com\u00fan<\/i><\/a>, la Corte dictamin\u00f3 que la manipulaci\u00f3n partidista de los distritos electorales es una cuesti\u00f3n pol\u00edtica que est\u00e1 m\u00e1s all\u00e1 de la jurisdicci\u00f3n de los tribunales federales; es decir, los tribunales federales no pueden hacer nada para impedir que los partidos pol\u00edticos manipulen los l\u00edmites de los distritos electorales para su propio beneficio.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u00bfDe qu\u00e9 se trataba?<\/i><\/b>\r\n\r\nRucho <\/i>Comenz\u00f3 en 2016<\/a> when Common Cause challenged North Carolina\u2019s congressional map in federal court. Despite Republicans receiving 53% of the statewide vote, they secured 10 of 13 seats.\r\n\r\nIn the same opinion, the Supreme Court also decided Lamone v. Benisek, a challenge to a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. In that case , Democrats obtained 65% of the statewide vote but claimed 7 of 8 seats.\r\n\r\nOn the fifth year anniversary of this landmark decision, we reflect on the five most important takeaways from the decision, its impact, and the road ahead.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1. La manipulaci\u00f3n partidista de los distritos electorales ha empeorado<\/b>\r\n\r\nInmediatamente despu\u00e9s del fallo, Common Cause anticip\u00f3 una peligrosa ola de manipulaci\u00f3n de los distritos electorales, un temor que se ha materializado en todo el pa\u00eds. Como detalla Common Cause en nuestro Informe de redistribuci\u00f3n de distritos de CHARGE,<\/a> states in which legislators draw districts were plagued with a lack of transparency, disinterest in community testimony, and partisan manipulation of districts. A statistical analysis of states using several measures of partisan gerrymandering found that some of the worst offenders in the 2010 cycle - like Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin - somehow managed to score even worse on some measures in the 2020 cycle. The intentional manipulation of electoral district boundaries undermines the will of voters, violates fundamental principles of democracy, and disempowers millions of Americans. With the highly competitive 2024 election just months away, addressing gerrymandering is essential to ensuring that democracy remains intact and every American has an equal voice.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n2. Los legisladores est\u00e1n usando a Rucho como escudo para encubrir la manipulaci\u00f3n racial de los distritos electorales<\/b>\r\n\r\nThe Rucho decision created a loophole for legislators in states where they control the redistricting process, allowing them to engage in racial gerrymandering under the guise of targeting the opposing political party.\r\n\r\nThis defense played out in the recent Supreme Court case Alexander vs. Conferencia de Carolina del Sur de la NAACP<\/i> (2024)<\/a>En una decisi\u00f3n de 6 a 3, la Corte confirm\u00f3 un mapa del Congreso que discriminaba a los residentes negros del estado. La mayor\u00eda acept\u00f3 el argumento de los legisladores de que su intenci\u00f3n era afectar las inclinaciones partidistas dentro del distrito, lo que, seg\u00fan Rucho<\/i>, falls outside the jurisdiction of federal courts.\r\n\r\nThis ruling sets a troubling precedent. Ahora, es permisible discriminar a los votantes de una comunidad de color registrados en un partido pol\u00edtico bajo la m\u00e1scara de la \u201cpol\u00edtica partidista\u201d. <\/b>Al permitir que la manipulaci\u00f3n partidista de los distritos electorales sirva como excusa para la discriminaci\u00f3n racial, la Corte ha puesto en peligro d\u00e9cadas de igualdad racial y de derecho al voto.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3. Los sistemas de manipulaci\u00f3n de distritos electorales se resquebrajan a medida que se intensifica la presi\u00f3n p\u00fablica sobre los legisladores<\/b>\r\n\r\nEn pos de Rucho<\/i>Los legisladores han hecho todo lo posible para proteger su poder de redistribuci\u00f3n de distritos, pero estamos empezando a ver grietas en su defensa. En la era moderna de la redistribuci\u00f3n de distritos, ha sido casi imposible lograr que los legisladores limiten su propio poder. Sin embargo, la creciente conciencia y la presi\u00f3n p\u00fablica ahora significan que los pol\u00edticos ya no pueden ignorar la demanda de una representaci\u00f3n equitativa. El movimiento por una redistribuci\u00f3n de distritos justa est\u00e1 ganando impulso en todo el pa\u00eds:\r\n