Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire

[dpmapper]

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

Strange that you assume it automatically has to be partisan.  It can't possibly be based on, you know, the text of the Constitution. 

If it also gives CA Dems the ability to gerrymander, wouldn't that make it biased in favor of Dems, anyway? 

[dpmapper]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

This is a partisan lawsuit, similar to the latest ACA lawsuit, initiated by the Republican party of Arizona. It would be extremely naive to assume otherwise.

If you're referring to the Indiana voter ID law that reached SCOTUS, that was initiated by the legislature. 

Just because partisans have interests in the outcome doesn't mean that the decision is therefore partisan. 

[dpmapper]

What we have to understand is that gerrymandering IS a serious problem, irrespective of its constitutional permissibility. The founders could not foresee many things. For instance, they could not foresee the DRA. And DRA (and its "professional" analogues, of course) is a horrible tool. Whereas the old Mr. Gerry could make mistakes if he cut to finely, today these things could be done with increasingly horrid precision, pretty much destroying electoral accountability.

I understand all that.  But the Constitution is what it is; you don't ignore it just because you think that by doing so you are solving a problem.   Otherwise what is the point?