Gerrymandering? Count Me In!

The first time I understood what we were up against was the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Antonin Scalia, the Court’s notorious “originalist,” had just died in his bed at a ranch in Texas. Obama proposed a suitable replacement: Merrick Garland, a respected jurist who had friends and supporters on both sides of the aisle. Based on his performance as Attorney General (timid, punctilious, cautious to a fault), it’s hard to say how he might have functioned as a justice. But nobody argued that he was a marginal candidate, unsuitable to the demands of our highest court. Just in case the point needs making, we’re looking at you, Clarence Thomas.

Unfortunately, Garland could never prove himself. In an exercise of surreal and brutal efficiency, Mitch McConnell immediately intervened, claiming that a high court nomination could not be rushed. The timing was painfully, fantastically egregious. McConnell staked his claim before the nomination. With almost a year to go before the end of Obama’s tenure, he demanded that the process be placed on hold. No matter than he did exactly the opposite with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. In Scalia’s case, McConnell ginned up a rule that perfectly captured Republican ruthlessness: Merrick Garland could not be vetted because it would advantage the party of Barack Obama. For the record, the Democrats capitulated.

But maybe we have put that timidity behind us. If you are transfixed as I am by gerrymandering in Texas, no Democrat seems to be rolling over. Donald Trump needs five more congressmen, and he has commissioned his conspirator, Governor Greg Abbot, to deliver the goods before the midterms. Abbot is only too happy to help. I would say orgasmically so. The dirty deed is actually straightforward. All he needs is new congressional districts that reliably deliver Republican winners. As they say in Texas, piece of cake.

This would normally trigger a school-marm response, at least in pitiful rules-followers like me. Even though gerrymandering has been used for centuries to construct safe districts for partisan purposes, it’s wrong in a hundred different ways, mostly because it undercuts the franchise. When a vote is cast in a manipulated district, the outcome is assured by the mechanics of border-fixing, not by a fair-fight contest between contenders.

But that was then. This is now. Kathy Hochul of New York has vowed an orgy of gerrymandering. Gavin Newsom would appear to be prepping for the same. Each state Trump persuades to gerrymander new congressional districts will now be matched by a blue-state equivalent. In the meantime, the Democratic stalwarts of Texas have vacated their offices to avoid a vote on redistricting. If you can’t beat them, go to Chicago! If the result is a draw, that would suit me just fine. If it results in a defeat for the Sauron of Pennsylvania Avenue, I would take to the streets to lead an orgy of celebration.

Because I am one of those Democrats you keep hearing about, the ones who care a little about comity, but really want to win in the next election. After that, we can sort things out and devise a new set of rules and political behaviors. In the meantime, I want my representatives to cream the opposition. As they say in Texas, don’t bring a toothbrush to a knife fight.