Perhaps the most significant problem in cases involving racial gerrymandering “is standing's redressability requirement.” If, as the Court suggested in Shaw and Miller, marginalization of minority voters constitutes the harm to be remedied, then such harm “exists in tension with the Voting Rights Act, the aim of which is to protect--and in many cases enhance--minority voting strength.” Therefore, “as long as the Voting Rights Act survives, legislatures must walk a fuzzy line between compliance with the statute and the treatment of race as the predominant consideration … [which] may be an unworkable distinction.” The concept of unworkability lies at the heart of why, in some situations judicial intervention is necessary to preserve separation of powers principles, and to protect constitutional freedoms. For this reason, deference to the legislature can, in some instances, contribute to arbitrary deprivations of constitutional freedoms.
3. THE ISSUE(S) ENABLE THAT THE COURT TO DEVELOP WORKABLE RULES TO GUIDE LOWER COURTS, LEGISLATORS, AND OTHER …show more content…
Where elected representatives are unwilling to address controversial issues litigants, citizens will have the means by which to enforce constitutional rights and remedy legal harms. In doing so, the Court can clarify its standing jurisprudence provide guidance to lower courts, and avoid the “uncertain and inconsistent application of the law among the regional courts of appeals and district courts.” Perhaps most importantly, court would be required to examine whether there is a realistic possibility of redress through the legislative process, thus ensuring that citizens are not defenseless be against the potentially arbitrary exercise of government power or subject to a government that “systematically favor[s] the powerful over the