tbh, I assumed that from the start. Particularly in a state where Republicans just lost control over redistricting, creating a commission where they could deadlock the process and having maps be drawn by a court whose members they appointed seemed like a textbook case of gaming the system. Even in a situation without the VASC, they probably would never reach an agreement anyway. There's just way too many conflicts of interest and self-interest at play.
I honestly think independent commissions and the way they operate/are stacked are one of the most egregious examples of bad-faith and ill-intentioned "gerrymandering reform," and they’re the main reason why I prefer even the current system to this kind of reform. I don’t know if that’s what happened here, but it always baffles me when so-called "independent" commissions act in a more partisan manner than even state legislatures/governors (we see this in states like MT/NJ/etc. as well). It’s a shame because it’s in both parties' interest to genuinely tackle gerrymandering at this point (it’s also the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, obviously, but electoral calculations will always take precedence over moral arguments in most politicians' minds) rather than just creating another (this time ostensibly 'non-partisan') thinly veiled gerrymander.
I’m completely opposed to those commissions in any state.
That sounds even worse than a commission tbh.
The only way to truly get partisanship / gaming the system out of redistricting is to give it to the computers. We will set allowable deviations by population, compactness, etc. and then let the computers draw the maps.
The only question would be VRA compliance and who decides on the algorithm, but those questions could be handled nationwide and not on a state by state basis. Regardless, this is the only framework that will ever be fair in any sense of the word.
