The Supreme Court should toss out redistricting plan

Dallas Morning News | Steve Bickerstaff:

“The 2003 redistricting was a tragedy. ... The remap was the most egregious example yet of an effort by lawmakers to choose their voters, rather than allowing voters to choose their lawmakers. ... It is difficult to imagine a more divisive, wasteful and corrupting phenomenon than ‘rolling redistricting,’ in which partisan battles dominate public interest on an ongoing basis and election districts are voluntarily redrawn. Such a result is anathema to the constitutional principle of ‘one person, one vote’ and is a threat to representative government. The Supreme Court should overturn the Texas precedent.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I agree that what happened in Texas was a travesty of democracy. It may be divisive. It may be wasteful. It may be corrupting. But it isn't unconstitutional. If partisan political redistricting is legal when it's done every ten years, it's legal if it happens every two years.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It may decide the case on grounds of racial discrimination, which is illegal. But it won't decide the case on political grounds. If Americans are sick and tired of gerrymandered election districts, they will have to apply pressure on their state legislature and/or the national Congress. The Supreme Court will wisely decide not to interfere in this, a purely political, matter. It will leave it to the political branch of government, the Congress, to either reform it or continue to exploit it.