In the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama case, the lower courts decided that the redistricting conducted by the Republicans after the 2010 census was not motivated by racial gerrymandering, but instead was the result of being in compliance with the law. The Republicans, at the time, had increased the African American population in already predominantly African American districts, which had upset people because they believed that it was racial gerrymandering. The basis of the argument against opponents revolved around the idea of “one person, one vote.” Coupled with this equality that has been ingrained into society is the Voting Right Acts, more specifically Section Five, which stated that when redistricting, the same number of majority-minority districts was to be maintained along with the …show more content…
Sanders. This case was the essence and foundation of “one person, one vote” because Sanders argued that the current system placed greater voting power in the smaller counties. In an almost unanimous vote, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Court Unit System violated the 14th Amendment in that smaller, rural populations had more voting power. This set the precedent for the Reynold v. Sims Supreme Court case. In this court case, a number of voting citizens in Alabama were in opposition to population distribution of the districts. Due to the vast population differences and underrepresentation of certain districts, the Supreme Court established that districts were to have similar population numbers. A similar ruling was upheld in the Wesberry v. Sanders Supreme Court case. The Republicans have actually had an improvement in the system contrary to what opponents say; the deviation of population in Alabama prior to the 2010 census was 10%, whereas it is now