Gerrymandering Essay

613 Words3 Pages
The Supreme Court has tried it’s best to stay out of the political grove that haunts our nation but when legislators are allowed to deal their own cards then take abuse the limitations of that responsibility, justice must be served. This high stake case confronts the issues of racial gerrymandering limits, packing, one-person one-vote rule, and vote dilution under the Voting Rights Acts to prove that artificially considering race alone when redistricting threatens citizens constitutional rights and those rights granted to each by the Voting Rights Act. Taking race into account when redistricting is not the issue, but the adoption of the racial quotas without considering any other factor does not adhere to the Voting Rights Act. It is clear that the State used particular gerrymandering techniques to undermine the black voters ability to elect representatives of their choice. It is in fact a good idea to consider race when redrawing district lines to preserve communities of interest; further, considering race when redistricting allows politics to better govern it’s citizens when they share common characteristics and values. However, legislative redistricting is subject to limitations. Without limitations, it is shockingly easy to manipulate the system to reduce black voting strength. Specifically speaking, the State’s plan likely exacerbated the historical retrogression, fulfilling it’s own actual legacy of official discrimination. To begin the discussion on limitations, it is best to consider the limit of the one-person one-vote principle that was adopted in Alabama’s own case from the 60’s, Reynold v. Sims. Sims is key to the case at hand because it demands that legislative districts cannot have great disparities in the number of people in them because disparities give voters in smaller-populated districts greater voting power in violation of the Fourteenth
Open Document