It’s one of those emergent properties that academics like to talk about- a rational (in the Homo economicus sense) decision by each member of a demographic leads to an irrational outcome for the demographic as a whole.
Voting matters. A lot. But I think we should focus on overturning the obstacles republicans have put in the way rather than joining them in describing occasional democratic voters as “feckless” slackers
Gerrymandering, along with the electoral college, allows for minority rule. There is not something in the law that protects against this?
Twice in the last 20 years, their presidential candidate got more votes but lost the election. And now that the 2022 redistricting cycle is beginning, Republicans in many states will be able to get fewer votes but end up with a majority of seats. (source: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1002593823/how-democratic-is-american-democracy-key-pillars-face-stress-tests)
Wow…despite what they face on their own soil…
I already gave you the Equal Protection argument, which current SCOTUS has rejected. Other than that, there is nothing in federal law that prohibits gerrymandering after accounting for the Equal Protection case law that says districts all have to be made up of the same number of people.
ETA: There is also the Voting Rights Act, but it doesn’t explicitly bar gerrymandering either, just certain limits on race-based districting that the current SCOTUS is happy to have unenforced.
I dunno how you do this for a living, Tex. The law infuriates me. 
Up until the Warren Court in the 1960s, states were free to draw their districts however they wanted, population be damned. At least we got one person, one vote enshrined into Equal Protection. But I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see it come back under scrutiny in the next redistricting cycle.
Which is just them letting us know things will be changing. It is what it is, and won’t end until what? The GOP is in power and pardons are issued for those convicted of January 6th related crimes.
The Second Amendment.
Did I mention…
Wasn’t this part of the destruction of the VRA that the SCOTUS tore out and ate for lunch a couple of years ago, saying it was no longer needed? I may have it wrong and openly admit it.
You’re probably thinking of Shelby County v. Holder (2011), where C.J. Roberts pronounced Section 5 (requiring DOJ preclearance of new voting rules in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination) unconstitutional because racism was over.
More recently, the Court gutted Section 2 by deciding that rules making it disproportionately harder for minorities to vote were fine so long as they weren’t overtly intended to have that effect.
Yep - that’s probably it.
And only they (the fascist six on SCOTUS) can say when that is so. /no snark, unfortunately.
SCOTUS making up its own facts has been a problem for a few decades now, but it’s gotten substantially worse in the last few years.
Those would be the Roberts years, no?
Though Scalia was already trying to push things along before Roberts took the helm.
More like the Barrett years. Thinking specifically of the recently argued case brought by an anti-gay website designer who wants to be exempted out from having to design wedding pages for same-sex couples, even though she’s never been asked to do such a thing. Also, Thomas and Alito cherry-picking 18th century laws to justify their preordained outcomes.
Now that you have it figured out, let us in on the solution. I’ll save you the trouble of a response; I am a dimwitted twat.
Thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of Civil Rights. Roberts seems to have dismissed reality when it comes his understanding of civil rights.
Proving that the GOP will go to the court they think they have the best shot with… AND if by any chance the GOP toadies on the NC Supreme Court rule against the GOP, the will simply appeal to the GOP toadies on the US Supreme court.