In a landmark decision on the legality of drawing legislative districts to favor one political party, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering has a silly name.
“It is the opinion of the Court that whoever came up with the name ‘gerrymandering’ must have been a really goofy guy,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, delivering a ruling poised to alter the political landscape for a generation. “Taking into consideration the long history of this redistricting practice, we believe it’s pretty wild that they could come up with such a wacky name like this way back in the nineteenth century.”
The 5-4 decision put an end to a lengthy court battle that challenged the validity of North Carolina’s legislative map, which Republican state legislators admitted they had designed to give an electoral advantage to members of their own party. The oral arguments brought before the Court were repeatedly disrupted by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who giggled uncontrollably every time he heard the word “gerrymandering.”
“Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, there’s no denying that ‘gerrymandering’ just sounds super funny,” wrote Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion that implicitly upheld the legitimacy of drawing district lines for the express purpose of tilting Congressional representation toward one party. “It is thus ordered that, as a nation, we acknowledge what a kooky name this is.”
Ruling similarly in a recent case on campaign finance, the Supreme Court decided that super PACs have a totally awesome name.