The Pros And Cons Of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering restrictions is likely to be a key topic of debate for the Supreme Court as partisan lines have tested the constitutionality of the act. While this process of redrawing boundary lines has been around for a long time, it is not the same that it once was. The act of gerrymandering and redrawing boundaries has become more of a drastic partisan act in the modern election world than ever before because of technology. The 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Davis v. Bandemer declared partisan gerrymandering for electoral advantage justiciable under the United States Constitution. The asymmetry standard in testing for gerrymandering states that the act needs to exhibit intentions that partisan gerrymandering would be recognized for its given distribution of popular votes, if parties switch who holds the popular vote and if the number of seats in a district would change unequally based on Supreme Court cases Vieth v. Jubelirer and LULAC v. Perry. Unfortunately, this standard is not the precedent established by the Supreme Court. The current argument headed to the Supreme Court in 2017 is that partisan gerrymandering is quietly producing a greater effect on the nation than ever before and needs to be addressed by the highest level of judiciary for its

Supreme Court, Section 4 was declared unconstitutional because the discrimination and constraints in voting rights is not the same today that it was fifty years ago. This case represents an argument in favor of the Elections Clause to become the standard for voting rights as it gives legislative authority of this nature to Congress. Through this Clause, there is also an argument in favor of national proportional voting to fight the continued issue of gerrymandering. Beginning with the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to redefine the protections and sources of authority defined under voting rights legislation under the new