GERRYMANDERING IN THE HOUSE: David Broder says it’s more of a threat to democracy than many appreciate:

The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to rehear the Texas redistricting case, but unless it someday decides to curb partisan gerrymandering, the makeup of the House is almost immune to change. Thanks to rigged boundaries and the incumbents’ immense fundraising advantage, nearly 96 percent of the “races” were won by a margin of at least 10 percent. Richie noted that 29 of the 33 open seats (with no incumbents running) stayed with the same party. The turnout of voters was about 50 percent higher than in off-year 2002, but party ratios in the House barely budged.

At the founding of this republic, House members were given the shortest terms — half the length of the president’s, one-third that of senators — to ensure that they would be sensitive to any shifts in public opinion. Now they have more job security than the queen of England — and as little need to seek their subjects’ assent.

This is a real problem.

UPDATE: A reader sends this link to a New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin. Several other readers note that gerrymandering is suddenly being seen as much more of a threat to democracy now that it’s protecting Republican incumbents. That’s probably true, but that doesn’t mean the basic point isn’t right.

Perhaps we should look to Iowa.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on gerrymandering from Prof. Bainbridge.