In the court case, Gil vs Whitford, the major concerns of this particular case was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, is to favor one party or class by manipulating the boundaries of those involved in the electoral constituent. This case first arose in the year 2011; in Wisconsin. In the state of Wisconsin, two republicans were elected in the states assembly and senate. Soon after that, the redirecting plan began to take place. Redirecting, according to Loyola Law School states that the redirecting plan “is the way in which we adjust the districts that determine who represent us.” Ultimately, referring to the thought of the state being either Republican or Democrat due to those in assembly and senate; in this case Republican. The argument here is to determine whether or not ‘extreme partisan gerrymandering’ is constitutional or unconstitutional. The ruling is still uncertain but the chances are that it is unconstitutional because it is making the vote of democrats less significant. This is shown in an article written by Quartz that states that “Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymandering deprived citizens of their constitutional right to a vote with value” in other words would diminish a person's …show more content…
Because the definition states it is a manipulation. A manipulation to the people of their states but broadly of their country. The Supreme Court should understand that both parties, Republican and Democrat should share same representation is every state. The thought of only favoring one party is unconstitutional. Those who are in the senate and state assembly should carry so much power against their people. To close, if I were a judge in the Supreme Court, I would try to listen to both sides. But ultimately see how these leaders are trying to cheat their people of what is given to them. The right to have a saying when it comes to their government and how it should be run and who it should be lead