By Steve Levy
The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld the redrawn Congressional district map approved by the Texas legislature that will certainly help Republicans.
The decision was sound from a legal perspective, but underscores how disturbing it is that it’s legally permissible to use partisanship as a motive in the redrawing of district maps.
Had the court ruled that the Texas legislature was redrawing the maps in a racially discriminatory manner, it would’ve had the authority to strike it down. But they correctly noted it wasn’t about race, but rather the desire of the Republicans to gain a political partisan advantage.
So the question remains: Why is that legal and should it remain that way? Of course, partisanship should NOT be permitted in the redrawing of these lines. That’s why we’ve editorialized in the past that the redrawing of these lines should be done through artificial intelligence using natural boundaries and a desire to have the most politically balanced district possible to dissuade extremism and to promote moderation.
Both sides of the aisle are guilty of gerrymandering. Republicans in Texas added fuel to the fire when they decided to redraw the lines well in advance of the 2030 census so that they could get a leg up in the upcoming midterms.
Not to be outdone, Democrats in California and other states said they can play tit for tat. We don’t blame them for doing so, but they certainly don’t have clean hands. The Republicans were prompted to do their gerrymandering in response to the outrageous partisan redrawing that was done for decades by Democrats.
For instance, in the state of Massachusetts, there’s not a single Republican member of Congress, even though Republicans regularly get 40% of the vote.
So, both sides are guilty. Let’s take the decision-making process out of the hands of self-interested Republicans and Democrats and give it to nonpartisan commissions, or, better yet, to artificial intelligence.