كليدواژه :
كوپر عليه هريس , كژحوزه‌بندي انتخاباتي , دادرسي اساسي , تساوي شهروندان , ايالات متحدۀ امريكا
چكيده فارسي :
پديدۀ كژحوزه‌بندي انتخاباتي را مي‌توان به‌عنوان يكي از مصاديق بارز تعدي به حقوق سياسي يك ملت و به‌مخاطره انداختن انتخابات آزاد و عادلانه، به‌مثابۀ مهم‌ترين تجلي مردم‌سالاري در يك كشور دانست. در اين اقدام غيرقانوني يك جناح سياسي از طريق اعمال نفوذ و دستكاري در مرزبندي حوزه‌هاي رأي‌گيري، رأي موثر بخشي از افراد را ازبين مي‌برد يا براي بخشي ديگر رأي مؤثر با هدف مهندسي انتخابات ايجاد مي‌كند. ديوان عالي فدرال ايالات متحدۀ امريكا در راستاي اجراي وظيفۀ دادرسي اساسي به‌طور خاص به اين موضوع ورود كرده، قوانيني را كه در ايالات مختلف به‌طور مصنوعي به تجزيۀ حوزه‌هاي انتخاباتي پرداخته و با دستكاري حوزه‌ها، اصل تساوي شهروندان را در انتخاب نمايندگان مطلوب خود نقض كرده‌اند، مغاير قانون اساسي تشخيص داده و ابطال كرده است. در اين مطالعۀ توصيفي- تحليلي كه بر اساس داده‌هاي اسنادي به نگارش درآمده است، نگارندگان به اين پرسش مي‌پردازند كه «نظام دادرسي اساسي ايالات متحده با پديدۀ كژحوزه‌بندي انتخاباتي چگونه برخورد مي‌كند و اين بررسي چه دستاوردي براي اصلاح نظام انتخاباتي ايران دارد؟ در اين راستا و براي تحليل عيني اين موضوع، قضيۀ «كوپر عليه هريس» را كه در سال 2017م در اين خصوص در ديوان عالي فدرال امريكا مطرح شده است، بررسي خواهند كرد و از ماحصل آن براي اصلاح نظام حوزه‌بندي انتخابيه در ايران استفاده مي‌كنند.
كليدواژه‌ها
چكيده لاتين :
The Gerrymandering phenomenon can be considered as one of the most obvious examples of violations of the political rights of a nation and jeopardizing free and fair elections as the most important manifestation of democracy in a country. In this illegal act a political faction weakens the vote effects of some people and reinforces some others through leveraging and redistricting the borders of election regions to reach its political aims. Analyzing the history of nineteenth-century US political developments illustrates the significant negative impact of this violation of lawmakers on the fundamental rights of the American people, especially in the conduct of free and democratic elections. It can be claimed that party-motivated gerrymandering during the nineteenth century systematically influenced the shaping of congressional election campaigns and, by making visible changes in the composition of state delegations, has determined the fate of the majority and decision-making party in the US House of Representatives. The founders of the United States drafted one of the first constitutions for the United States in 1787, and because this law has clear rules, judges go directly to it and give its ruling. Given that the principle of separation of powers is one of the fundamental pillars of the constitution, the judiciary, which is represented by the United States Supreme Court, has complete independence and other powers cannot interfere with its decisions or refuse to enforce its decisions. Based on this fact, the Supreme court of the United States has specifically addressed this issue in the context of the implementation of constitutional review, as its basic duty, and has made the legislation which caused artificial redistricting and violated the principle of equality of citizens in different states abolished and considered them against the constitution. In this analytical descriptive study which has based on documentary data the authors discuss this question that “How does US constitutional review deal with gerrymandering and what is the achievement of this study for reforming Iran’s electoral system?” As an objective analysis we will study a recently discussed US Supreme court case (Cooper V. Harris) and use the results for reforming the redistricting system of Iran. As a result of this comparative study and after reviewing Iranian laws and regulations regarding electoral districts, it is observed that the mechanism for determining the district borders in Iran and the US is affected by policy and factional inclinations, and as a suggestion, the crucial task of electoral districting in the country can be entrusted to an independent commission to replace the previous pattern with a clear and expert process. It should be borne in mind that the Federal Supreme Court frequently used general terms of the US Constitution to consolidate the foundations of democracy and free and fair elections by using the interpretation of the law, and the Guardian Council in Iran In this way, can also play an active role in preventing the influence of party and factional inclinations on future districting. Utilizing the criteria used by the US Supreme Court to counter this abuse, including the prohibition of racial discrimination and the principle of equality of citizens with regard to the plurality and diversity of ethnic and minority groups in Iran, would be fruitful in possible amendments to the laws.
