Bad F%$#ng Idea

So, there are a number of ways that a future Democratic Party controlled Congress can deal with the issue of Gerrymandering.

This is the worst one I have seen so far, Congress refusing to seat Representatives from the states that have redistricted.

Apart from the obvious, it would cover California or any other blue state redistricting as well, it would embolden Republicans to do the same thing for any reason that they can pull out of their flabby wrinkled white asses.

………

Here’s an idea, then, for how the next Congress can defend multiracial democracy without needing to pass legislation. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution makes each House of Congress the “Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members.” Meanwhile, Article IV, Section 4 says that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This provision—known as the Guarantee Clause—has long been held to be unenforceable in court—“non-justiciable,” to use the technical term. This rule dates back to the (wild) 1849 case Luther v. Borden, in which the Supreme Court declined to get involved in the recent Rhode Island civil war.

Instead, making good on the guarantee of republican government is left largely to Congress—and not only through the use of its legislative powers. For, as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (yep, same guy) put it in Luther v. Borden, “when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority.” In other words, Congress judges the republican character of each state every time it seats that state's elected representatives. This also implies that Congress can refuse to seat a state's representatives, if it thinks that state's government is not republican. And it has in fact used this power, most notably during Reconstruction: the Southern states' delegations were not seated until they had re-established legitimate, republican government to the satisfaction of Congress.

Suppose, then, that a majority of the House of Representatives thinks that Callais was wrongly decided. That would mean that the elections for Congress in states like Tennessee, which have eagerly exploited Callais, were conducted unlawfully, even unconstitutionally. It might even imply that the governments of those states are no longer republican in character: surely, after all, the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of black suffrage is an essential part of what republican government means in America today. Accordingly, Congress could refuse to seat any of Tennessee's nine (all-white, all-Republican) representatives.

This would be a f%$#ing disaster.