To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Bar Partisan Gerrymandering” (nytimes.com, June 27):
Surely a majority of the Supreme Court cannot be so lacking in vision that it does not see how dismissing gerrymandering as a political question outside the courts’ authority strikes at the very basis of our Constitution: democracy.
Gerrymandering is always intentional, and the intent is to make some citizens’ votes worth less than those of others. As others have said, gerrymandering means that instead of voters choosing their leaders, the leaders choose their voters. To assert that the framers of the Constitution would be comfortable with such a result is to utter a grave historical libel.
The justices who voted in the majority are generally described as “conservative.” They are nothing of the sort. They are truly radicals.
Jonathan J. Margolis
To the Editor:
With its refusal to bar partisan gerrymandering, our current Supreme Court majority has confirmed itself as no more than a partisan body, justifying the egregious acts of its political fellows. The complete abandonment of the “one person one vote” constitutional principle is obvious even within the smarmy legalese used in the ridiculous attempt at justification.
The court’s ruling states that “the Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness.” This is beyond comprehension. The soul of America cries to think that there is no recourse in the Supreme Court.
The ruling undermines itself by affirming that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional and can be rectified by the courts.
Source: Read Full Article