This unconstitutional. Early after, a federal court

This case is titled Gill v Whitford. The appellant (person taking it to the higher court) is Beverly R. Gill and the appellee (person trying to make the higher court stick to the lower court’s decision) is William Whitford. The cases’ docket number is 16-1161, this means this case started in 2016. The case is currently still pending meaning the supreme court has not decided on a victor yet. The case was argued once for about an hour on October 3rd of 2017.In 2010 Wisconsin voted a Republican majority in the state assembly, the senate, and a Republican governor. This has not occured within that state for the past forty years. The Republicans made a voting district map that made is so the Republicans would always get a majority vote under almost any scenario. This plan the Republicans made was introduced in July of 2011. Both the senate and the assembly passed the bill shortly after it was introduced, it was passed very easily because of the dominant Republican assembly and senate. The governor then signed the bill in August of 2011. The problem was that the plan they were passing had two legal challenges that related to constitutional and statutory grounds. This meant that the plan could be undermining the constitution and therefore being unconstitutional. Early after, a federal court upheld the plan and said it was not violating the “one person one vote” principle or was it violating the Equal Protection Clause. People opposing this plan said that the plan was unconstitutional and it drew legislative and congressional district lines to maximize and preserve the power of the Republican party. According to Oyez.org the questions that were then asked about the case in the Supreme court were: “Did the district court err in holding that it had the authority to hear a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, rather than requiring a district-by-district analysis? Did the district court err in holding that the redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander? Did the district court use an incorrect test for a gerrymander? Are defendants entitled to present evidence that they would have prevailed under the gerrymander test actually used by the district court? Are partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable?”