How the Supreme Court Learned to Love Partisan Gerrymandering

"Roberts, writing for the majority, lamented that partisan gerrymandering was pernicious and unfair. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote in Rucho v. Common Cause."

"The conservative majority's decision in Louisiana v. Callais doesn't just tolerate but encourages states to embrace partisan gerrymandering as a justification for squeezing out majority-Black districts."

"As politicians work through the impact of the decision, Republican-led governments in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama have all announced plans to try to redraw maps this week."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais marks a shift towards endorsing partisan gerrymandering, allowing states to manipulate district maps to reduce Democratic representation. This decision follows a previous case where the Court acknowledged the unfairness of excessive partisanship but refrained from intervening. In light of the ruling, Republican-led states are moving to redraw district maps aggressively, aiming to secure their political power while undermining majority-Black districts. The implications of this decision are significant for electoral representation and the integrity of the Voting Rights Act.

Read at The Atlantic