WHEN THE TAIL WAGS THE DOG . . .

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in what may prove  to be the most important case in the last 20 years. The issue was political gerrymandering. They already ruled in two previous cases that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional, and at least two states have had to redraw their voting districts because specific racial groups were being denied any “effective” vote because of the way the party in power drew the lines after the last census (it’s done every 10 years).

The issue before the Court today was whether a party in power can define voting districts so that they are virtuallyy guaranteed a win, even if they lose the popular vote (no, this has nothing to do with the Electoral College when Hillary Clinton received nearly three million more votes and lost the election). Chief Justice Roberts asked the question, “if we were to rule that political gerrymandering was unconstitutional, and the Democrats won, would people say we took sides?” The answer is that some people would always say that but the real question is much simpler, yet is at the heart of our entire democracy; SHOULD THE PARTY IN POWER BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH VOTER’S VOTES WILL COUNT, AND WHICH WON’T?

If you don’t know the answer to that question, you’re living in the wrong country!