Partisan gerrymandering has been dragged through the mud by the left for years, but the truth is plain: it’s not a problem, it’s politics as usual. The latest Supreme Court ruling affirming Texas’s redistricting maps wasn’t some nefarious Republican power grab. It was a return to common sense—letting elected politicians decide political questions, not unelected judges with activist agendas. Yet predictably, the usual left-wing mouthpieces erupted, whining about partisanship and fairness as if they invented democracy itself.
Here’s the reality liberals refuse to accept: politics is inherently about power and winning elections. When voters hand a party control of a legislature, why should anyone blink if that party draws maps that help it keep that power? That’s not cheating; it’s the system working exactly as intended. The very term “gerrymander” comes from a Democrat governor’s early 1800s bungled district drawing. So when Democrats cry foul today, it’s less about fairness and more about sour grapes. They invented the playbook, and now they hate playing by it when the other side wins.
The left’s sudden outrage only flared when they started losing ground in the Bush and Obama years. Suddenly, they pushed to weaponize courts against redistricting maps unfavorable to their party. Barack Obama’s own Attorney General became obsessed with suing states to overturn Republican maps, while conveniently ignoring wildly skewed Democratic-dominated states like Massachusetts, where Republicans still win a big chunk of votes but get zero seats. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it. They demand “fairness” only when it suits their power grab.
This Supreme Court’s refusal to turn political questions into judicial crusades is a victory for the Constitution and for voters. The idea that judges should meddle in who draws maps is dangerous and undemocratic. Apportionment is politics, pure and simple. If the left can’t win at the ballot box, they shouldn’t get a free pass from activist courts to reshuffle the deck. Voters—not liberal judges—should decide who governs. The “one man, one vote” mantra has become a rigid straitjacket for the left’s benefit, but it was never meant to be the only rule. America’s founding principles recognized that political representation involves more than just raw numbers.
If the left really cared about democracy, they’d accept that winning means playing by the rules—no matter who draws the lines. Instead, their answer is always the same: complaints, chaos, and more federal lawsuits aimed at subverting American self-government. It’s time to call out this anti-American attitude for what it is: a desperate fight to hang onto power at any cost. When the courts wisely step back and leave politics to the people, that’s not a failure—it’s America working the way it’s supposed to.
So why do liberals keep whining about gerrymandering, when they created the monster they now fear? Because power corrupts absolutely, and they don’t want to lose their grip. But guess what: America doesn’t owe them a redistricting safe space. If you want to win, win at the ballot box. If you can’t, maybe it’s time to move on. Otherwise, stop pretending partisan politics is some grave constitutional sin. It’s the lifeblood of this nation—and no court order will ever change that.
Source: American Thinker
Leave a Reply