This whole gerrymandering war really shows the tremendous dysfunction of the American political system. A state legislature's ruling party has such a strong incentive to gerrymander that it is extremely hard to pass reforms such as independent redistricting commissions. (my state is lucky enough to have citizen ballot initiatives that can bypass the legislature, but not all states have that process)
In a functioning system the U.S. Supreme Court would step in and check the power of all legislatures to gerrymander, ending the tit-for-tat redistricting, but this Court has instead chosen to fan the flames by reducing barriers to gerrymandering. (whether racial or political party based)
I wouldn't be surprised if they strike down independent redistricting commissions in a future case given their recent decisions on independent agencies. The 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission likely wouldn't be decided the same today given the changes in the court's composition since 2015. So it goes.
> In a functioning system the U.S. Supreme Court would step in and check the power of all legislatures to gerrymander
Based on what authority, and according to what standards? In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court's holding was based on the premise that it lacked legal standards it could use to judge whether a map was gerrymandered or not. Researchers in that case proposed various mathematical approaches for creating compact districts, but the Court found that there wasn't an approach that would distinguish permissible from impermissible gerrymanders.
Subsequent research largely bore out that premise. https://gking.harvard.edu/compact/ ("The US Supreme Court, many state constitutions, and numerous judicial opinions require that legislative districts be 'compact,' a concept assumed so simple that the only definition given in the law is 'you know it when you see it.' Academics, in contrast, have concluded that the concept is so complex that it has multiple theoretical dimensions requiring large numbers of conflicting empirical measures.").
Legislatures today can use software that creates biased maps while meeting compactness criteria: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/vi.... How do courts strike down maps as gerrymandered when you can use software to generate a variety of maps with very different partisan leans that all measure reasonably compact mathematically?
> Court has instead chosen to fan the flames by reducing barriers to gerrymandering. (whether racial or political party based)
Your characterization of Louisiana v. Callais is backward. That case struck down a racially gerrymandered map. In Louisiana v. Callais, the legislature originally drafted a pretty straightforward map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2025_Louisiana_congr.... The district court then ruled that the map had to be more gerrymandered, to create a second majority-minority voting district: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2025_Louisiana_congr.... If you judge the maps according to mathematical compactness criterion, the additional majority-minority district in the second map totally flunks that test.
That is an area where the Supreme Court does have a concrete standard by which to judge whether maps are racially gerrymandered. Was race explicitly used to create the map? Then it's an unlawful gerrymander.
The Supreme court is doing what it is doing because it has an agenda, and the people were put into their roles because they would push that agenda. They all come from specific "schools of thought" about reforming America in a tremendously shitty way, and most have specific "Loyalty" events from history, including at least one being part of the election shenanigans of 2000.
The underlying problem is that the number of representatives hasn't increased in about 100 years (not counting addition of Alaska and Hawaii). Increase the number of reps, as was regularly done up until early 20th century, and a lot of this gerrymandering nonsense will disappear. Of course, the powers that be don't want to do this because it would make the system more fair and democratic.
This whole gerrymandering war really shows the tremendous dysfunction of the American political system. A state legislature's ruling party has such a strong incentive to gerrymander that it is extremely hard to pass reforms such as independent redistricting commissions. (my state is lucky enough to have citizen ballot initiatives that can bypass the legislature, but not all states have that process)
In a functioning system the U.S. Supreme Court would step in and check the power of all legislatures to gerrymander, ending the tit-for-tat redistricting, but this Court has instead chosen to fan the flames by reducing barriers to gerrymandering. (whether racial or political party based)
I wouldn't be surprised if they strike down independent redistricting commissions in a future case given their recent decisions on independent agencies. The 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission likely wouldn't be decided the same today given the changes in the court's composition since 2015. So it goes.
> In a functioning system the U.S. Supreme Court would step in and check the power of all legislatures to gerrymander
Based on what authority, and according to what standards? In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court's holding was based on the premise that it lacked legal standards it could use to judge whether a map was gerrymandered or not. Researchers in that case proposed various mathematical approaches for creating compact districts, but the Court found that there wasn't an approach that would distinguish permissible from impermissible gerrymanders.
Subsequent research largely bore out that premise. https://gking.harvard.edu/compact/ ("The US Supreme Court, many state constitutions, and numerous judicial opinions require that legislative districts be 'compact,' a concept assumed so simple that the only definition given in the law is 'you know it when you see it.' Academics, in contrast, have concluded that the concept is so complex that it has multiple theoretical dimensions requiring large numbers of conflicting empirical measures.").
Legislatures today can use software that creates biased maps while meeting compactness criteria: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/vi.... How do courts strike down maps as gerrymandered when you can use software to generate a variety of maps with very different partisan leans that all measure reasonably compact mathematically?
> Court has instead chosen to fan the flames by reducing barriers to gerrymandering. (whether racial or political party based)
Your characterization of Louisiana v. Callais is backward. That case struck down a racially gerrymandered map. In Louisiana v. Callais, the legislature originally drafted a pretty straightforward map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2025_Louisiana_congr.... The district court then ruled that the map had to be more gerrymandered, to create a second majority-minority voting district: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2025_Louisiana_congr.... If you judge the maps according to mathematical compactness criterion, the additional majority-minority district in the second map totally flunks that test.
That is an area where the Supreme Court does have a concrete standard by which to judge whether maps are racially gerrymandered. Was race explicitly used to create the map? Then it's an unlawful gerrymander.
This isn't "Dysfunction"
The Supreme court is doing what it is doing because it has an agenda, and the people were put into their roles because they would push that agenda. They all come from specific "schools of thought" about reforming America in a tremendously shitty way, and most have specific "Loyalty" events from history, including at least one being part of the election shenanigans of 2000.
It's a directed effort, a strategy.
It's republican policy.
https://archive.ph/2026.05.08-163604/https://www.nytimes.com...
The underlying problem is that the number of representatives hasn't increased in about 100 years (not counting addition of Alaska and Hawaii). Increase the number of reps, as was regularly done up until early 20th century, and a lot of this gerrymandering nonsense will disappear. Of course, the powers that be don't want to do this because it would make the system more fair and democratic.
[dead]