Districts begin to take on strange shapes, resembling anything from a salamander to a bug splattered on a windshield, as these politicians seek to spread out their own support while confining the other party's supporters to as few areas as possible. Although this type of electoral manipulation has existed since the beginning of our political system, it has not been until the last two decades that racial and political gerrymandering have become critical legal and political issues. The Supreme Court addressed this controversy in several recent, important cases, such as Davis v. Bandemer and Shaw v. Reno , where the Court held that political and racial gerrymandering can violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, the current re-districting process is antithetical to our democratic principles. Generally speaking, cases of discrimination have resulted in voter disenfranchisement, while cases of political and racial gerrymandering have resulted in vote dilution.
Voter disenfranchisement prevents certain citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote.
Vote dilution, on the other hand, involves how much weight is ascribed to each vote. While the Court has upheld certain reasonable restrictions on voting, such as age, citizenship, and residency requirements, it has held in Davis and Shaw that racial and political gerrymandering can be violations of the Equal Protection Clause. In voter disenfranchisement and vote dilution cases, the Court has applied a strict scrutiny standard. Samuel Issacharoff divides cases dealing with minorities and voting rights into two generations. Samuel Issacharoff, University of Chicago Legal Forum , at 34, col.