2.

The passage implies that before 1964, which of

the following may have been true?
(A) Political parties had no say or control in
legislative apportionment.
(B) Some citizens’ votes counted for less than a
full vote.
(C) A district could be designed to contain more
constituents than another.
(D) Gerrymandering was allowed for some states
and not others.
(E) The Supreme Court could overrule any
redistricting based on the “one person, one
vote” requirement.
3. The discussion of the Supreme Court Wesberry v.
Sanders case in lines 18–26 is intended primarily
to
(A) show that the Supreme Court failed to solve
the “one person, one vote” problem that has
plagued the electoral system since the early
beginnings of the nation
(B) explain the legal underpinnings of the
proposed solutions to the legislative
apportionment issue
(C) explain that while one branch of the
nation’s government was trying to solve the
problem another branch was undermining
that effort
(D) give a historical perspective to a problem
with democratic representation that has
yet to be resolved through legislative
reapportionment
(E) establish that the Supreme Court is in fact
the original cause of gerrymandering and
other interference by political parties in the
electoral mapping process
4. The discussion of Proposition 27 in lines 53–59
implies that which of the following was true
before the passage of Proposition 20?
(A) The Citizens Redistricting Commission,
though a good idea, was an impracticable
institution and needed to be eliminated for
redistricting to work properly.
(B) The politicians wanted to create confusion
by having both propositions on the same
ballot, hoping that voters would favor
Proposition 27 over Proposition 20.
(C) The Citizens Redistricting Commission
existed before the election to redistrict the
state legislative map but lacked the authority
on the congressional map.
(D) Voters rejected Proposition 27 because it
conflicted with Proposition 20 but would have
approved it if a compromise had been struck.
(E) The Citizens Redistricting Commission was
unconstitutional and if the voters did not
eliminate it the courts would have to do it.
5. Which of the following, if true, would most
undermine the arguments for California’s
Proposition 20 discussed in the third paragraph?
(A) It is proven that a significant majority of
voters reelect their representatives because
they are happy with their performance.
(B) Several bills were passed recently because
both Republican and Democratic
congressmen were able to come together
and achieve compromises on the legislation.
(C) The proposition would deny the
commission the right to use income, race, or
gender as factors in determining the shape
and size of the district.
(D) It is discovered that one of the members
under consideration for the commission is
actually a member of a political party.
(E) Population movements among districts are
so fluid from year to year that it is almost
impossible to predict voting patterns for a
particular district in any election.