Final answer:
The court treats racial and political gerrymandering differently, with racial gerrymandering subject to strict scrutiny. Shaw v. Reno set a precedent against racial gerrymandering, while Reynolds v. Sims emphasized 'one person, one vote' and led to changes in electoral maps, yet also to primitive and sometimes discriminatory mapping efforts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The opinion of the court generally treats political and racial gerrymanders differently, with racial gerrymandering being subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause while the court has been more hesitant to address political gerrymandering. Shaw v. Reno (1993) was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court established that racial gerrymandering could lead to an unconstitutional racial segregation in voting. The Court held that while race can be a factor in redistricting, it cannot be the predominant factor in creating a district without a compelling governmental interest.In Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court mandated that voting districts be adjusted to have approximately equal populations to preserve the principle of 'one person, one vote'.
This decision led to changes in electoral maps to correct imbalances. However, the methods to achieve fair representation were at times primitive and inadvertently or intentionally discriminatory, leading to controversial map designs and subsequent legal challenges.In the modern era, courts have increasingly struck down gerrymandering efforts when they are found to infringe upon equal protection and due process. Discussions about whether redistricting should be a nonpartisan issue and handled by independent commissions rather than by legislators are ongoing. States that have been accused of partisan or racial gerrymandering face significant scrutiny and potential legal consequences.