Eric Holder "extremely concerned" about Supreme Court elections case

The problem is that the Court took the federal courts out of the business of reviewing state redistricting. Unless the Voting Rights Act gives the federal government the power to pre-approve or allow challenges to redistricting under federal law, this question can be settled by tradition, but not statute. It is likely that this case was taken to force Congress to come up with a solution - or for the states to do so legislatively by prescribing standards by which to reapportion. The case the Supreme's got wrong was in taking away federal court review.

Proportional representation would fix this, although that has its own problems if all the members of the legislature or Congress live in one part of the state. Some kind of district rules would still be required - like which party can fill which district based on election results. Neither is an easy call and redistricting would still be required under the latter situation (unless minor parties would hold at large seats - with more seats than districts).

Eric's point is well taken on how redistricting has made the House competitive. It now reflects the 50-50 nature of our polity, which is as much about personalities as it is about issues (including the personality and demographic/economic traits of voters). 

The answer to our 50-50 nation is for one party to actually propose changes outside the margins of current debate - especially regarding tax policy. The consensus around the ill-advised 1986 tax reform and the narrowing range of rates between parties has reduced the field of issues to a few culture war tropes that the Court has mostly settled.

There will be no federal law on abortion unless it is bipartisan - something like fetal hospice with no other aggressive measures after the 14th week, but no limit on inducing pregnancy. Spending issues will be localized and foreign policy will likely begin to stop at the waters edge, depending on the prosecution of Trump.

The question of whether there is executive privilege on foreign policy, absent blatant bribery, is what drives whether Smith can see Trump's documents on the Ukraine affair for which he was impeached (as well as any assistance Trump received in 2016) and any campaign contribution to Trump channelled from Moscow through Fruman and Parnas.

The question of whether there will be civil unrest when Trump pleads guilty (and he will) is overblown. The leaders of the Oath Keepers have been convicted. The effectiveness of that organization as a terrorist group is over. The Proud Boys are next. The people who would lead any kind of violent movement are incarcerated and will not be released any time soon, if ever again. Trump did not hold back any reserves on January 6th. That tank is empty.

The MAGA Tea Partiers who stormed the Loudoun County School Board - and were investigated because they were on FBI watch lists, will get tired of their latest victims. The 2024 election rejection of such issues that Youngkin and DeSantis think are so important will end with their bids for national office. Pompeo and Pence are too tied to Trumpism and Ukraine to ever be elected either.

When the electorate is even, it can either stay in a rut or respond to fresh leadership on real issues. At this point, it is an open question.