However, the decision was close and had many opinions. In “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act”, Richard Forgette and John Winkle provided a historical background on the decision: “In late April 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote affirmed the lower court judgment in Vieth and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, however, the ruling proved anything but conclusive. The significance of the ruling, it seems, now lies in its fractured set of opinions” The Justices’ split decision left the door open to reinterpreting the judiciable grounds for gerrymandering under the right circumstances. As displayed thus far, gerrymandering by Republicans has implied racial discrimination. While previous cases have …show more content…
Whitford and Bensiek v. Lamone, both cases address the issue of the constitutionality of gerrymandering. If referring to judicial precedent, there is a strong reason to argue that partisan gerrymandering should be allowed to exist, albeit not without limitations. Racial gerrymandering should be deemed unacceptable, which can be seen through the clear examples shown in this paper of the constitutional violations, particularly the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments. In Gill v. Whitford, Republicans sliced up Milwaukee because the minority presence in the city proved to greatly disadvantage their party when it came to electing candidates. In turn, the surrounding districts struggled to vote in Democratic representatives as it lost its concentration of minority voters. Clear racialized gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, whether or not it is “partisan gerrymandering.” On the other hand, Bensiek v. Lamone does not present any form of racial discrimination in its case. Political retaliation is cited in the argument as the motivation for gerrymandering, albeit this argument appears weak and unjustified. In a broad sense, both parties retaliate against one another in various