Redistricting and Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is one of the most controversial aspects of creating districts. It is characterized by long narrow, oddly shaped districts created for political advantage. After the 1990 Census, racial gerrymandering became a sensitive issue that caused uproar. Racial gerrymandering and incumbency make redistricting a controversial issue. Racial gerrymandering has helped elect several African American and Hispanic representatives by creating minority majority districts. The Constitutionality of this practice has come into question in recent years. According to the American Congress, The courts have made a series of confusing ruling on the issue. Racial Gerrymandering continues to be a controversial aspect of redistricting for several reasons. Civil rights, the Voting act, and affirmative action make rulings on the issue unclear.

The 12^th districts in North Carolina and New York City are prime examples of racially motivated gerrymandering. The 12^th district in North Carolina is a long thin region that creates a majority black district. It doesn't take communities into account. The oddly shaped region is clearly motivated by a political agenda. The 12^th district in New York City is an oddly shaped area that is heavily populated by Hispanics.

Gerrymandering can also create an unfair advantage for the party in power. District lines can be drawn that give an incumbent or political party a significant advantage in future elections. A prime example of party gerrymandering occurred after the Supreme Court ruling in Westberry V. Sanders in 1964. The court decision lead to redistricting in many states. This gave political advantage to democrats because they dominated state courts. This type of gerrymandering creates districts that are more likely to vote for a particular party, as well as re-elect a particular candidate in future elections.

In the next clip, Rep. Max Sandlin discusses a Republican friendly redistricting plan in Texas. He argues that his current district will be underrepresented by the then majority's plan to redistrict. In many circumstances, the needs and best interests of the constituents are compromised for political gains.

Gerrymandering is a significant reason for increased re-election rates. This type of redistricting has decreased completion dramatically. Party balance continues to be skewed and distorted after district lines are redrawn. Both political parties have benefited from redistricting in various states. Overall, the Supreme Court has yet to form any concrete decisions on Political gerrymandering. There are several implications and it is still unclear what constitutes actually constitutes as Gerrymandering.

There are several key Supreme Court rulings that have made valiant efforts in determining the constitutionality of redistricting and political gerrymandering. Baker V Carr is one of the more significant court decisions. It was one the first politically charged court decisions associated with redistricting. It supports the 14^th amendment and creates the theory of one man, one vote. The previously mentioned Westburry V. Sanders also analyzes whether or not the 14^th amendment was upheld. Karcher V. Daggett established mathematical equality. This is an important ruling because it addresses districts were essentially equal in terms of population, but were still drawn in a skewed way that gave a particular part a political advantage.