The Callais Decision Part II

In our second episode on the Callais decision we turn to criticism, though only after doing our best to identify some things in the decision that might be correct. Among our concerns are whether the Court was right in saying that things have changed (for the better) since 1965, whether the opinion was a reasonable application of the Court’s prior decision to refrain from federal judicial regulation of partisan gerrymandering, and whether partisan gerrymandering is defensible in places where partisan affiliations are highly correlated with race. And we raise questions about the Court’s apparent commitment to letting district boundary decisions—and more—be made by democratically responsible bodies when those decisions actually constitute the kind of democracy we have.