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)
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