Gerrymandering should remain legal in the United States

My opponent brings up how 2010 was a republican blowout, this is true, but I would argue the reason they have maintained control of the house is because of gerrymandering. As pointed out in the previous round, there are at least 13 seats they gained or are maintaining from gerrymandering recently. If we are a democratic republic like my opponent argues for, then gerrymandering wouldn't be allowed. A democracy is a system of government in which the people directly vote for every law. A democratic republic would be a system where the representatives are directly voted by the people and the representatives actually represent the people well. In our case, they don't represent the people as I pointed out with how a plurality of people are neither democrat nor republican, and majority want a third party. If we were a democratic republic, we would see similar percentages of support for such ideas among the representatives. Gerrymandering, super pacs, and our voting system makes it that we are not a democratic republic, but a different kind of republic. I would argue we are a plutocratic republic, but that's a discussion for another time. The point is, it's not indicative of a democratic republic to allow gerrymandering, as I pointed out in the previous round it prevents people from being represented. My opponent brings up gerrymandering in order to discriminate against minorities, and "minorities were aloud to vote for who they wanted to despite the redrawing of the political borders; they don"t have less of an opportunity." However, minorities are not truly represented under gerrymandering since it undermines their representation. If minorities make up 30% of a state, they should also get to choose as close as possible to 30% of the state's representatives, however, in the case of the eastern district of Virginia, it was purposely made in such a way to undermine the minority vote. In Wittman V. Personhuallah et al, the supreme court ruled that the appellate had no case to bring it up to the supreme court, and essentially made it that the lower court's decision to rule the racial gerrymandering unconstitutional stands[1]. This is but one of the many cases where courts have ruled racial gerrymandering unconstitutional, and not only that, but as I pointed out before, political gerrymandering is also now being looked at and a court ruled it unconstitutional as I pointed out in my previous round. The courts are the ones to decide whether gerrymandering is unconstitutional, and my opponent claims gerrymandering is not. My opponent does not have any authority to claim it unconstitutional or constitutional, and has failed to provide instances where the court has ruled gerrymandering constitutional. From what I have found, the courts have only ruled so far about racial gerrymandering, except for the federal court for Wisconsin that I pointed out above. Shaw v Reno was a major supreme court case in which it was ruled that racial gerrymandering is to be placed under strict scrutiny from the 14th amendment. [2] However this is not as relevant since this debate is mostly about political gerrymandering. Sources: [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu...