Democracy? We Don't Need No Stinkin Democracy!

Ah, the Supreme Court. When they start issuing opinions, I have to reach for the maalox.

The most recent travesty is their decision to uphold the DeLay gerrymandering in Texas. While the court has recognized that a grossly partisan gerrymander is grounds for throwing out a map, their acceptance of this plan - the most egregiously partisan imaginable - renders that theoretical position meaningless.

The decision also accepted the constitutionality of mid-decade re-districting, which will open the floodgates. In the future we can expect Republicans to re-draw the lines any time they have the opportunity. So far the Democrats haven't had the guts to do it, but I don't see how they're really going to have a choice now. People who tell me that we shouldn't do it because we "don't want to be like them" are going to get the back of my rhetorical hand. Be warned.

What's particularly outrageous about the Court's ruling is its singling out of the 23rd district for special treatment. If a map dilutes voting rights on racial grounds, that is unacceptable. But apparently making discriminatory decisions on political grounds is perfectly okay. Screw over Democrats, just don't harm racial minorities. Can someone identify the sense in this for me?

One could argue that the court was just following the Constitution - that there's nothing in it prohibiting re-districting more than once a decade. Look people, it's not like the Supreme Court hasn't reinterpreted the Constitution in order to take account for important factors like preserving democratic fairness and political equality. The Constitution does say that there will be a census and re-districting will happen afterward. The Court could have argued that this implies that re-districting will only happen then, except for exceptional circumstances. The Court could have argued that the founders could never have intended for the political maps to be used cavalierly as a political weapon, and that a due regard for fairness mandates some limit to gamesmanship. Hell, even the NYT agrees with me!

But what to do now? New Donkey suggests state constitutional amendments barring these sort of shenanigans. Assuming that such an approach is feasible it's probably a good idea. But I think it's long past time that we revisisted the entire process of political mapmaking. The problem is what. Independent commissions are inevitably going to be captured by the parties, and the Court is clearly no safeguard against abuses. I'm seriously contemplating moving to multi-member districts with a high threshold to dissuade 3rd parties and "spoilers." Perhaps the safest kind of map is to not have maps at all.