<P> Various examples of affirmative racial gerrymandering have emerged . When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations . Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration for the 2nd congressional district that featured a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach the Hopi reservation to the rest of the district; the arrangement lasted until 2013 . The California state legislature created a congressional district (2003 - 2013) that extended over a narrow coastal strip for several miles . It ensured that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns . </P> <P> In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court upheld on 28 June 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas . The 7--2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups . A 5--4 majority declared one Congressional district unconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority . </P> <P> The United States is alone among major countries in that self - interested politicians govern the redistricting process . Various political and legal remedies have been used or proposed to diminish or prevent gerrymandering in the country . </P> <P> Various constitutional and statutory provisions may compel a court to strike down a gerrymandered redistricting plan . At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering . If the jurisdiction fails to propose a new redistricting plan, or its proposed redistricting plan continues to violate the law, then the court itself must draw a redistricting plan that cures the violation and use its equitable powers to impose the plan on the jurisdiction . </P>

When does the supreme court consider any form of gerrymandering unconstitutional