Gerrymandering Culminating Activity PIH Network 2019

Task: Determine how the Supreme Court should rule on Gerrymandering. Materials Provided Supreme Court precedent summaries laid out in the following cases: Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), Baker v. Carr (1962), Reynolds v. Simms (1964), Vieth v. Jubelirer, (2004), Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, (2015), Gill v. Whitford (2019) Constitutional Amendments related to voting Politician quotes about gerrymandering. Outline arguments for why the court would vote in favor of all three options and then make a choice for which one the court should take.

Task: Determine how the Supreme Court should rule on Gerrymandering. Context: The Supreme Court is hearing cases this session in 2019 Your job is to take on the role of a Supreme Court Justice and determine how the court should handle the issue of gerrymandering. Analyze the recent evidence regarding Gerrymandering and make a ruling on how you feel the court should handle the issue of Gerrymandering. To help, use the Supreme Court precedent cases and the video clips regarding Benisek v. Lemone and Rucho v. Common Cause to support your claims. Additionally, you will be provided an organizer on the constitutional amendments related to voting and politician quotes on gerrymandering.

Supreme Court Cases on the Docket Benisek v. Lamone (Argued on March 26, 2019) Involves Maryland https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue= 244&v=dYyXjxCU-34 Rucho v. Common Cause (Argued on March 26,2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue= 140&v=bdI7OVAIhpY Involves North Carolina

Both cases involve Partisan gerrymandering 1st map is of Maryland's map Benisek v. Lemone case. Drawn by Democrats 2nd map is of North Carolina’s Rucho v. Common Cause Drawn by Republicans Pay attention to the shapes of the districts, be critical of their sizes.

Note the designs of districts 3, 4, and 5.

Note the shapes of districts 4, 1, and 12 and the designs of these districts.