The last word on Gerrymandering...or it should have been.

It would seem that even the video clip and quoted comments below still wouldn't be enough to convince judges and justices the fatal flaw of gerrymandering. Sadly, the "debate" and "conversation" will continue:

A major Republican redistricting strategist, Thomas Hofeller, played a role in the Trump administration's push to get a citizenship question on forms for the 2020 census ...(he) concluded in a 2015 report that adding the question would produce the data needed to redraw political maps that would be "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," according to a court filing released Thursday. He saw holes in the democratic system that could be exploited by technology and guile. Hofeller, who died in August 2018, saw a way to turn small vote margins into supermajorities for GOP legislators.

"Redistricting is like an election in reverse! It's a great event," he said with a smile at a National Conference of State Legislatures event in 2000. "Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters!"

He spent 10 PowerPoint slides in a presentation he gave about redistricting in 2011 just on legal issues and privacy.

It's also important to remember:

Wisconsin Watch: Cal Potter, a former Democratic state lawmaker who now serves on the board of Common Cause in Wisconsin, a nonpartisan watchdog group, noted that the redistricting after the 1990 and 2000 Census was done by the courts, because the Legislature and governor were split and could not agree on a plan. This time around, he said, the GOP ran the show and was able to maximize its electoral advantages.

So the recent decision that simply discounted the basic fundamentals of a representative democracy as "not large enough"...

thepoliticalenvironment: “A panel of three federal judges unanimously ruled: "As for the other claims, we find that although the drafting of Act 43 was needlessly secret, regrettably excluding input from the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin citizens, and although the final product needlessly moved more than a million Wisconsinites and disrupted their long-standing political relationships, the resulting population deviations are not large enough to permit judicial intervention under the Supreme Court’s precedents."