Delimitation
According to the Delimitation of Constituencies
Act, 1974, the constituencies for elections to the
National and Provincial Assemblies are to be
delimited after every census.
HOW CONSTITUENCIES ARE DEMARKED?
All constituencies are required to be delimited having regard
to:
- distribution of population in geographically compact areas,
- existing boundaries of administrative units,
- facilities of communication,
- public convenience
- other factors to ensure homogeneity.
HOW CONSTITUENCIES ARE DEMARKED?
All constituencies for the general seats are, as
far as possible, equal in population.
The Election Commission, which for this
purpose is called the Delimitation
Commission, publishes a preliminary list of
constituencies and invites representations
thereon.
HOW CONSTITUENCIES ARE DEMARKED?
The Commission after hearing and considering
the representations, if any received by it,
makes such amendments , alterations or
modifications in the preliminary list as may be
necessary.
It then publishes in the Official Gazette the
final report and the list of constituencies.
Gerrymandering
Practice of drawing boundaries of electoral
districts in a way that gives one political
party an unfair advantage over rivals
(political gerrymandering)
or that dilutes the voting power of members
of ethnic or linguistic minority groups (racial
gerrymandering).
Gerrymandering - origin
Derived from name of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state
senatorial districts.
The law consolidated Federalist Party vote in a few districts
and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-
Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought
to resemble a salamander.
A satirical cartoon graphically transformed the districts into a
fabulous animal, “The Gerry-mander.”
Gerrymandering and Race
Gerrymandering based on race:
Thornburg v. Gingles, 1986
SC: Voting Rights Act 1965 prohibits voting standards or practices
whose practical effect is members of racial minority:
“have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to…
elect representatives of their choice.”
Gerrymandering and Race
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Held electoral districts whose boundaries cannot be explained
except by race can be challenged as violations of equal
protection clause,
Miller v. Johnson (1995)
Held that equal protection clause prohibits use of race as
“predominant factor” in drawing electoral-district boundaries.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
Red
Red
Red
Articles 62 and 63
Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)
[62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen
as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one
who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and
practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as well
abstains from major sins;
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest
and ameen;
Arguments against lifetime disqualification
- inserted in 1985 by Zia - should such an addition trump Art
17 latitude to freely associate with political group
- nobody except prophets can fulfil these
- Conviction is also lifetime argument
- non fund rights articles vs fund rights articles
- basic logic: murderer not disqualified for life but
misstatement gets you lifetime disqualification.
- interpretation vs rewriting the const.
Art 62(1): elected or chosen as a member
Art 63(1): elected or chosen, "and from being" a member
Art 62(1): elected or chosen as a member
Art 63(1): elected or chosen, "and from being" a
member
Timeframe not provided in Art 62 because it was
imagined that these qualifications would be
assessed before one becomes a member of Parl. i.e
when filing nomination papers.
So does this means once elected, a failing on art 62
would not disqualify you?
It would but only till next election if failing is
rectified.
The contrary would be perverse because:
1. No man can be perpetually dishonest,
2. Court don't and shouldn't have power to declare so because courts do
not adjudicate sins or character traits
3. Courts can declare a party lied in a certain instance, but not that
someone is dishonest by nature.
- Supposed declaration can only be that individual in
question IS A LIAR, not that he shall remain a liar for
all times to come.
In this sense the declaration is a one-off event:
Valid only till the next election, where if the candidate
can make a showing while filing papers that he is AT
THAT TIME and NOW truthful, the now past
declaration has no effect.
