It is a dead gerrymander
News has just broken that the Supreme Court of these here United States told the Pennsylvania GOP that it's on its own as far its ridiculous gerrymander goes.
Color me shocked that this SCOTUS sided with forces of Light, but there you have it.
This bodes well for the other gerrymandering cases which are before the Court.
Of the many anti-democratic, vote-suppressing strategies employed by Republicans, gerrymandering is the least controversial. I say this because the gerrymander has had a long history in American politics, on both sides of the aisle.
But the thing is that Democrats don't actually need to resort to gerrymandering to secure majorities. I will cite California as an example.
In my state, an independent commission, consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members belonging to neither party, draw district lines. What this has led to is a Congressional delegation consisting of thirty-nine Democrats and fourteen Republicans. You can see the shapes of the districts here.
This is really the way any political lines should be drawn. I don't want districts left to the mercies of Democrats any more than I want them subject to GOP whims. Politics should be a clash of ideas, not a contest as to whom can muscle out the opposition. And, as California shows, when districts are drawn fairly, Democrats make out quite well.
What this denial of a stay indicates is that there is a majority on the Court to overturn gerrymandering in toto. This will do away with one of the GOP's major weapons. I'm not expecting Mississippi to have a majority Democratic delegation; but the contests should be such that Democrats see a reason to put up candidates.
So, celebrate. The Court did the right thing. That in itself is a thing of wonder.
Like what you read? Chip in, keep us going.