The record shows that both parties gerrymander and that both parties took cases to the SCOTUS challenging political-based gerrymandering.
I didnât like the SCOTUS ruling but we will have to live with it. Notable it was the conservative justices that voted to preserve political gerrymandering.
A ruling the other way would have restricted political gerrymander everywhere and for both parties. This is the outcome I desired.
Hey, Iâve NEVER said only one side or the other does it. I will say that if one doesnât have a problem with their favorite side doing it, then donât get their panties in a bunch when the other side does it as well.
The most developed D vs R case was from Wisconsin (Gill v Whitford)
And it was based on political gerrymandering not race.
Interesting to think that if political gerrymandering was outlawed, it could clarify and disrupt racial gerrymandering. Perhaps with some racially described districts being challenged as politicaly described.
Is race even a major component of the overall gerrymandering problem?
I get that is it aggravating for D to have a race card to play, and it grabs headlines, but my understanding is that gerrymandering has been implemented much broader than race dominated districts.
And with SCOTUS giving it the green light it will be fully implemented in every state where one party has control (2 of 3 branches).