If gerrymandering is ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

such the problem that even cartoonists recognize it, why haven't Democrats used Reynolds v. Sims, the One man, One vote case to challenge the gerrymandered structure of the districts ... especially when Texas, in it's defense against the DoJ, has explicated stated that the scheme was designed for partisan advantage?

[GladRagDahl]

1. Gerrymandering and History

Gerrymandering has been around since at least 1812 and has been argued before the Supreme Court. Without a Constitutional amendment it's a done argument.

[YarnAddict]

2. There are good reasons for gerrymandering

It provides representations for people who would otherwise not have a voice in government. The reason Democrats haven't gotten rid of it is because there is no way to throw out the "bad" districts without jeopardizing the "good" ones.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I agree ...

but (without having run the numbers) I suspect that electoral demographics have changed to a point where party affiliation serves as a proxy for racial (ethnic) politics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Not true ...

It was successfully argued in 1962 ... (Reynolds v. Sims) ... I suspect the answer lies in the post #2 ... How to get rid of the "bad" districts (i.e., drawn for partisan/racial (ethnic) purposes versus drawn to maximize representation of under-represented groups.

[Gothmog]

5. I am a lawyer and all valid issues are being raised

I have read all of the pleadings and briefs in the Texas case. I also prepared and filed testimony in both the Texas House and Senate Committees on the last round of redistricting. The GOP is using computer programs that produce districts that are equal in population but are gerrymandered as to race. Section 5 was the best way to block this type of gerrymandering but the SCOTUS fixed that.

If you want go to Michael Li's Texas Redistricting web site. I can assure that all available legal theories are being used in the Texas cases