Article snippet: The Supreme Court today will hear arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a political gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin. Political gerrymandering, which refers to the act of drawing legislative districts for partisan advantage, is a common practice. This case asks when the use of politics in redistricting crosses the line from ordinary partisanship to something that is so excessive as to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said courts can decide these cases (there are some who argue that the cases are simply too political for courts to decide) but has never explained how to decide when partisanship crosses the line. In 2011, Wisconsin’s Republican governor signed Act 43, which allowed for a redistricting of the state. The move also appeared to give Republicans an advantage in the state's elections. William Whitford, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor emeritus and the lead plaintiff in the case, argues the newly created map does not accurately reflect Wisconsin’s electorate. "Wisconsin’s Assembly ... bears no resemblance to its evenly split electorate. In 2012, Republicans won a supermajority of 60 seats (out of 99) while losing the statewide vote. In 2014 and 2016, Republicans extended their advantage to 63 and 64 seats, respectively, even though the statewide vote remained nearly tied. Republicans thus wield legislative power unearned by their actual appeal to Wisconsin’s voters. This pro-Republican skew is no accident,” he says.... Link to the full article to read more