The unfortunate Supreme Court gerrymandering decision

The framers were convinced that faction is inevitable owing to differing views and interests; yet people must be free to express their views. “The latent causes of faction are sown into the nature of man… the inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the mean of controlling its effects.” (Federalist 10) But how? Their solution to the damaging influence of faction was not less diversity of interests and views, but more diversity. Greater diversity of political views and interests would lead to more debate and force both sides to assert and defend their positions through vigorous debate. Ambition would counteract ambition. In our political environment, our officials have veered sharply away from this founding principle. Instead of seeking the beneficial effects of greater diversity of interests and views, our political parties draw Congressional districts to cram similar interests into gerrymandered Congressional district boundaries – “safe” districts. The creation of “safe” districts limits diversity of views and takes advantage of concentrations of like-minded voters to influence election outcomes. By limiting diversity and promoting political homogeneity our political officials violate one of the essential aspects of the founders’ Constitutional reasoning. Simply stated, those who limit diversity and create safe districts run 180 degrees counter to the design and intent of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. And, when states gerrymander the boundaries of their districts to create “safe” districts for a particular party, it further entrenches a party candidate, making it unnecessary for the candidate to exercise political courage, to explain and defend their views in the face of energetic opposition. In fact, they are able to sidestep the marketplace of ideas that is the lifeblood of a democratic republic.