Who should draw the lines?

Re “The future of gerrymandering,” editorial, Aug. 15

Perhaps we should not be surprised by how willing the Republicans are to abandon fairness and democracy in the electoral process.

After all, they claim to be the direct descendants of the Federalists who, in the early days of this country, were very much opposed to democracy and saw it as a threat to the power of the upper classes.

I had thought that Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans had won that battle, and the extension of voting rights to ex-slaves and women proved the commitment to democracy in this country.

Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, we were taught that democracy was the bastion against all that was evil in the world. In the seventh grade I won an essay contest on the topic, “What democracy means to me,” and was taken to an awards banquet in a big downtown hotel. The contest and banquet were sponsored by the John Birch Society.

Now I notice a conspicuous absence of the word “democracy” in Republican and conservative conversations. It seems that maintaining power is far more important to the modern Republicans than any commitment to democracy or fairness. John La Grange Solana Beach

The Supreme Court has refused to ban gerrymandering because there is not one iota of difference between political gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering.

Any words used to invalidate political gerrymandering would also invalidate all those setaside minority districts that always elect Democrats. Bob Munson Newbury Park