Answer :
Final answer:
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, specifically in the case of Shaw v. Reno. While practices like political gerrymandering and minority majority districts are still debated, they do not inherently violate constitutional principles as established by the Court. Reapportionment itself is a legal process rather than a constitutional issue.
Explanation:
Constitutional Issues in Redistricting
In the context of redistricting, several practices have come under scrutiny by the United States Supreme Court. The question posed asks which of the following has been ruled unconstitutional:
- Reapportionment
- Minority Majority districts
- Racial gerrymandering
- Political gerrymandering
Racial Gerrymandering
Among these options, racial gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided in Shaw v. Reno (1993) that legislative districts created explicitly to favor racial groups could violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling asserts that race should not be the predominant factor in drawing district lines.
Other Practices
While political gerrymandering is often criticized and considered unfair, the Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to declare it unconstitutional as it falls within the scope of political strategy and is less clear-cut than racial considerations. Minority Majority districts are also not unconstitutional on their own; they may be created to ensure minority representation but must avoid violating the principles laid out in Shaw v. Reno.
Reapportionment, the process of redistributing representatives among the states, is a legal process that aligns with population changes and does not fall under constitutional violations. Thus, while redistricting practices can lead to legal challenges, the specific ruling of unconstitutionality applies predominantly to racial gerrymandering.
Learn more about Gerrymandering here:
https://brainly.com/question/38414715