The link near the end of this article was a really interesting rabbit hole to go down: Death to the Gerrymander, wherein the same author argues that Monday's ruling in Cooper v. Harris striking down racial gerrymandering was an appetizer to the main dish, Whitford v. Gill, a case from Wisconsin dealing with purely partisan gerrymandering. It seems that SCOTUS views such purely partisan gerrymandering as unconstitutional but without a reliable, predictable tool for distinguishing it.
It's generally inadvisable to place all hopes on any single outcome but Whitford v. Gill shows a lot of promise for reducing political polarization. It's preferential that politicians not be rewarded for their partisan games, i.e. outlawing gerrymandering, but in this instance it would benefit Democrats, a development I'm disposed towards.
- in this instance it would benefit Democrats, a development I'm disposed towards.
It would make state and local races more competitive, which currently benefits the underrepresented party, the Democrats. In the medium and long term it is better for everyone that districts become more competitive.