Short Answer 
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Baker v. Carr and Evenwel v. Abbott established the foundation for challenging gerrymandered districts by affirming federal court authority over redistricting and the principle of equal population in voting districts. Ongoing complexities, illustrated by cases like Abbott v. Perez, show that gerrymandering remains a contentious issue within the judicial system, impacting electoral fairness and representation.
Step 1: Understand the Role of Baker v. Carr
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2019 for North Carolina to redraw its gerrymandered districts is rooted in the case of Baker v. Carr (1962). This landmark ruling established that federal courts have the authority to intervene in matters of redistricting, particularly when there is disproportionate representation in state legislatures. This foundation has paved the way for challenges against unfair district maps, ensuring that representation is equitably distributed.
Step 2: Recognize the Significance of Evenwel v. Abbott
The ruling in Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) further solidified the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. This case emphasized that voting districts need to maintain equal populations, thereby ensuring fair representation for all individuals. The implications of this ruling stress the importance of creating districts that reflect demographic equality, which supports the argument against gerrymandering practices that distort electoral fairness.
Step 3: Acknowledge the Complexity of Gerrymandering Cases
While Baker v. Carr and Evenwel v. Abbott set critical precedents for redistricting, subsequent cases, such as Abbott v. Perez (2018), demonstrate the ongoing complexities surrounding this issue. This case dealt with racial gerrymandering and upheld certain district maps, highlighting that the legal landscape of gerrymandering is continually evolving. Understanding these cases illustrates how gerrymandering challenges persist in our judicial system, influencing elections and representation.