Which of the following statements describes the Supreme Court's most recent position on the issue of gerrymandering?

A. All forms of gerrymandering are within the constitutional rights of state legislators.
B. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional if it leads to permanent minority status for one party.
C. Any gerrymandering plan is unconstitutional on its face.
D. Federal courts cannot make a blanket determination on whether gerrymandered maps violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in Rucho v. Common Cause, asserted that issues of partisan gerrymandering are outside federal court jurisdiction, effectively stating that such matters should be handled by state legislatures. This decision signifies that federal courts cannot issue blanket rulings against gerrymandered maps. While recognizing the potential harms of gerrymandering, the Court has not declared it uniformly unconstitutional.

Explanation:

Supreme Court's Position on Gerrymandering

The most recent position of the Supreme Court on the issue of gerrymandering came in the case of Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. In this case, the Court ruled narrowly that partisan gerrymandering issues are political questions that are beyond the reach of federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that these matters are to be resolved by state legislatures, leading to the conclusion that federal courts cannot make a blanket determination about the constitutionality of gerrymandered maps.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, expressed concern that these gerrymanders debase and dishonor democracy by undermining the principle that governmental power derives from the people. Thus, while the Court has acknowledged gerrymandering's potential to harm democratic principles, it has refrained from declaring any specific plans unconstitutional.

Learn more about Gerrymandering here:

https://brainly.com/question/38414715