What she said

The Supreme Court majority’s ruling — asserting that federal courts can do nothing whatsoever to check ever-more-sophisticated,ever-more-insidiouspartisangerrymanding, which is rendering our supposedly representative democracy increasingly unresponsive to the will of voters — is now law of the land.

Here, we share the opening of Justice Elena Kagan’s penetrating dissent:

“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives.

“In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental

power derives from the people. These gerrymanders enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters’ preferences. Theypromotedpartisanshipaboverespectforthe popular will. They encouraged a politics of polarization and dysfunction.

“If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government. And checking them is not beyond the courts.Themajority’sabdicationcomesjustwhen courts across the country, including those below, have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. And here is how she closes:

“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declarethelaw,thiswasnottheone.Thepractices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”

We dissent too, with less respect and more anger.