During the next elections, if a Congressman is 'elected' from a state with gerrymandered racial districts, in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling... there is a good response.
A majority vote from members of the House can block an "elected" member from being seated. It requires a formal vote of the entire House... and simple majority to prevent seating an unfairly elected member.
Same with the Senate. A simple majority of U.S. Senate can vote to block a member unfairly "elected" from being seated.
Exclusion requires a chamber vote: Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, each chamber is the "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." This means a majority vote in the House or Senate is required to refuse seating a member-elect.
There are limited grounds for exclusion: The Supreme Court ruled in Powell v. McCormack (1969) that Congress cannot exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s qualifications (age, citizenship, residency). Past misconduct or political views are not valid grounds. However, election cheating due to use of gerrymandered districts IS valid reason to refuse to seat members. Use it.
California has 52 representatives in the United States House of Representatives all by itself. Imagine if the House votes to exclude ALL California representatives unless the voting district gerrymandering is fixed before the election. Either they fix the problem, or NONE can seat.
During the next elections, if a Congressman is 'elected' from a state with gerrymandered racial districts, in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling... there is a good response.
A majority vote from members of the House can block an "elected" member from being seated. It requires a formal vote of the entire House... and simple majority to prevent seating an unfairly elected member.
Same with the Senate. A simple majority of U.S. Senate can vote to block a member unfairly "elected" from being seated.
Exclusion requires a chamber vote: Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, each chamber is the "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." This means a majority vote in the House or Senate is required to refuse seating a member-elect.
There are limited grounds for exclusion: The Supreme Court ruled in Powell v. McCormack (1969) that Congress cannot exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s qualifications (age, citizenship, residency). Past misconduct or political views are not valid grounds. However, election cheating due to use of gerrymandered districts IS valid reason to refuse to seat members. Use it.
California has 52 representatives in the United States House of Representatives all by itself. Imagine if the House votes to exclude ALL California representatives unless the voting district gerrymandering is fixed before the election. Either they fix the problem, or NONE can seat.