Kevin Williamson has no problem with gerrymandering electoral districts. His latest National Review Online column explains why.
For a century, the gerrymander was an ordinary part of U.S. politics. And, then, the unthinkable happened: Republicans got really, really good at it.
The gerrymander, named for Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry (he also served as James Madison’s vice president) takes its name from a peculiarly shaped legislative district, thought to resemble a salamander, obviously drawn in such a way as to increase the electoral chances of Gerry’s party, the Democratic-Republicans, to which the modern Democratic party traces its roots.
That was 1812. Some [205] years later, the state legislatures are looking too red for the tastes of modern Democrats, who are going to the Supreme Court to argue that legislative redistricting, an inherently political exercise, is too . . . political.
The Supreme Court should butt right out. Better that it had never butted in. …
… Rather than having unaccountable panels of phony nonpartisans acting behind the scenes, we are far better off letting our political processes be exactly what they are: political. If Texans don’t like how Texas legislators draw up the state’s electoral maps, then they can kick Republicans out and put Democrats in charge.
