There are at least four Supreme Court votes for a constitutional theory so partisan and stupid two justices who joined Bush v. Gore refused to sign off on it

North Carolina and Pennsylvania will have fairer, less gerrymandered maps in place for the 2022 elections. But:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed maps that had been approved by state courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to stand, rejecting pleas from Republicans and giving Democrats a temporary victory in a long-running battle over redistricting. The move left the door open for challenges to partisan gerrymandering in state courts after the justices ruled in 2019 that federal courts were powerless to address such claims.

The court’s brief, unsigned order in the North Carolina case gave no reasoning. But the court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — dissented, saying they would have blocked the map because it was likely that the State Supreme Court had violated the Constitution in overriding the State Legislature.

“There must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Justice Alito wrote.

Note all of the qualifications in Alito’s argument, because based on the theory that if the Constitution gives power to the legislative branch it therefore preempts any judicial review of legislative power would just be an argument against the judicial review of legislation, but he wants the logic to be good for this particular type of cases only for obvious reasons.

Keep in mind as you read this excerpt from Alito’s opinion that he joined an opinion holding that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because it violated Sacred (if atextual) Principles of Federalism:

Simply extraordinary that Alito would write this passage after joining an opinion less than three years ago (Rucho) assuring the nation that state Supreme Courts could limit partisan gerrymandering under state constitutions. https://t.co/OENgCZnskv pic.twitter.com/s9Ng9Njlqg— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 7, 2022

Look, the Tenth Amendment clearly makes the Supreme Court of the United States the body in charge of interpreting the North Carolina state constitution. (And with the familiar junior high debate school canon “durr, the constitution’s statement of broad principles does not use the word ‘gerrymandering’ durr” no less.) Somewhere in the back.

Anyway, I can’t say relying on Amy Coney Barrett to do the right thing is giving me a lot of comfort here.