I think you’re probably right, in the sense that not doing this would probably be even worse, but we’re destroying the town to save it, as the saying goes. Win or lose, there won’t be much left of a very important norm.
How is it “destroying the town” when the measure explicitly returns redistricting control to the independent commission in 2031? It’s temporary by design to address the moment we are in.
Things intended to be temporary often end up permanent, especially when it is in the interest of the party in power to make them permanent (and gerrymandering is always in the interest of the party in power, because that’s the party that does the gerrymandering).
With that said, the intent to revert this gerrymandering is the intent to rebuild the town, but even if the town will be rebuilt someday, it’s still being destroyed now. California Republicans have a right to representation, and the Democrats are deliberately depriving them of that right because of something that totally different people in Texas are doing.
I’ll extend the war metaphor: sometimes military necessity dictates a course of action that will cause civilian casualties, but even then we should still acknowledge that there are civilian casualties and that that’s bad.
At least this would give us a chance to rebuild it. If we don’t, we may never have the opportunity. If things settle again, these are the people who would agree to creating some rules around gerrymandering and even consider eliminating it across the country so it can never be used again to try and consolidate power.
But if we let the Republicans do so without challenge, they will enshrine it and it will never go away.
It’s the difference between having a destroyed town and letting it be taken over by fascist that will use their power to both destroy the town and remove any opposition, leading to a situation where you have no power to even fix the town for decades into the future.
I think you’re probably right, in the sense that not doing this would probably be even worse, but we’re destroying the town to save it, as the saying goes. Win or lose, there won’t be much left of a very important norm.
How is it “destroying the town” when the measure explicitly returns redistricting control to the independent commission in 2031? It’s temporary by design to address the moment we are in.
Things intended to be temporary often end up permanent, especially when it is in the interest of the party in power to make them permanent (and gerrymandering is always in the interest of the party in power, because that’s the party that does the gerrymandering).
With that said, the intent to revert this gerrymandering is the intent to rebuild the town, but even if the town will be rebuilt someday, it’s still being destroyed now. California Republicans have a right to representation, and the Democrats are deliberately depriving them of that right because of something that totally different people in Texas are doing.
I’ll extend the war metaphor: sometimes military necessity dictates a course of action that will cause civilian casualties, but even then we should still acknowledge that there are civilian casualties and that that’s bad.
At least this would give us a chance to rebuild it. If we don’t, we may never have the opportunity. If things settle again, these are the people who would agree to creating some rules around gerrymandering and even consider eliminating it across the country so it can never be used again to try and consolidate power.
But if we let the Republicans do so without challenge, they will enshrine it and it will never go away.
It’s the difference between having a destroyed town and letting it be taken over by fascist that will use their power to both destroy the town and remove any opposition, leading to a situation where you have no power to even fix the town for decades into the future.