Election maps

Partisan gerrymandering rigs elections and helps create the toxic polarization of our politics. But this kind of systemrigging is not the kind our president constantly bellyaches about. There are 117 tweets by President Donald Trump about rigging. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated a redistricting map contrived by Republicans to entrench their party, Mr. Trump tweeted that the Republican map was “correct” and urged a continued fight.

U. S. Supreme Court decisions have acknowledged that extreme partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles. But relying on the argument that redistricting is a political matter, not one for the courts to decide, the court’s latest decision has now shut the doors to federal courts, which

henceforth will turn a blind eye toward such hyper- partisan skulduggery.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the decision, claims that he does not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void” because individual states may create independent commissions to draw congressional districts. But wait, in 2015, Chief Justice Roberts argued that state ballot measures to create such commissions were unconstitutional.

Justice Elena Kagan’s thorough and scathing dissent makes it very clear the extent to which the majority has shirked its responsibilities. Modern methods can generate thousands of redistricting maps, a smorgasbord allowing parties to select their preferred disenfranchisement of adversaries — now without fear of federal oversight. A political system based on citizen participation should not make participation seem pointless.

ARTHUR DENBERG

Point Breeze