The high court and the gerrymandering puzzle

Re “Don’t mess with Texas districts,” Opinion, Feb. 24

The American people have often been frustrated by the Supreme Court’s intervention in their affairs. In his article, Edward Blum echoed this frustration, arguing that the court should stay out of the anti-gerrymandering business and let our elected officials clean up the mess. I disagree.

Those who resent the court’s interference with the popular will must remember that, for all its faults, the court has a crucial role to play in our democracy: protecting our democratic institutions themselves by overseeing the process, not the substance, of our national debate.

In the past, when democracy itself has broken down -- when the black vote was muted by Jim Crow, or political opposition was silenced by sedition acts -- we’ve looked to the court for a solution, not those who benefited from the rigged election.

Blum concedes that “gerrymanders are barriers to competitive, democratic elections,” but he insists that this breakdown in the democratic process “should be resolved by the voters.”

Such a resolution would require each of us to demand that our state representatives establish a redistricting process that would be their own undoing.

Without the court’s help, I don’t like my chances.

ARTHUR D’ANDREA

Austin, Texas