Gill V. Whitford Case Study

Gill v. Whitford is a Supreme court case that deals with political gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that the state's Republican-drawn map constitutes an "unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say, “were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans.” The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal, but it has never said how much is too much. We were assigned to find out whether the gerrymandering in the case was justiciable or not. After 3 class periods of research and then some we have come to the conclusion that the political gerrymandering that happened in this case is not justiciable. It is not justiciable because gerrymandering isn't in the constitution, a very similar court case happened and it was not justiciable and lastly Insert: Mattie’s Argument (Shorter Form For Thesis Statement)
Gerrymandering isn't in the Constitution.
Thus gerrymandering isn't unconstitutional. People can draw the districts however large or small that they want, there is no specification of what is lawful and what is not in the constitution There isn’t even a section or article in the entire constitution where it talks about redrawing districts. To be more specific there are no provisions (a condition or requirement in a legal document) outlined in the Constitution forbidding gerrymandering. Republicans held a majority in both houses of the state legislature, and a Republican was governor so of course they are going to draw districts into their favor; who wouldn’t? Furthermore there are little to no supreme court cases where gerrymandering was found unconstitutional. So if it is not unconstitutional or even in the constitution how can it be justiciable? The job of the supreme court is to uphold the constitution so if its constitutional it shouldn't be in the supreme
court. Insert: Mattie's argument
After the 2000 census there were new redistricting within the United States. Richard Vieth, Norma Jean, and Susan Furey took Robert C. Jubelirer, President of pro-tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, went all the way to the supreme court. Claiming that the redistricting was unconstitutional because it violated the one-person, one-vote principle of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Equal Protection clause, the Privileges and Immunities clause, and the freedom of association. In the end the supreme court ruled that gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred with the ruling of the court to uphold the District Court's decision maintaining that cases of political gerrymandering were not justiciable We believe that Gerrymandering is not justiciable. Gerrymandering is not justiciable because gerrymandering isn't in the constitution, a very similar court case happened and it was not justiciable and lastly another court case shows gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it talk about the redrawing of districts, thus the it can’t be justiciable. The job the supreme court is to uphold the constitution so if its constitutional it shouldn't be in the supreme court. A very similar court case happened and it was not justiciable, after the 2000 census there were new redistricting within the United States and in the end the supreme court ruled that gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. ← Restate your part of thesis and summarize your Argument here Mattie
Gerrymandering has been used in many elections since the beginning of our country's birth and have had no opposition. We firmly believe Gerrymandering is not justiciable.