> I also don't know that it's the Supreme Court that's meant to overturn That's exactly the issue I was getting at. Equal representation is clearly a constitut

> I also don't know that it's the Supreme Court that's meant to overturn That's exactly the issue I was getting at. Equal representation is clearly a constitutional issue, which it is the court's duty to rule on, and yet the constitution does not explicitly address districting issues. Would defining a standard to determine whether a districting plan meets the constitutional requirement be within the court's purview? Clearly yes, because that kind of standard-setting is a significant part of what they have always done. It's right in the introduction to the Wikipedia list of landmark decisions. "establishing a "test" or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisio... Declining to set such a standard because such things are delegated to the states would have been reasonable. Declining to set such a standard because it's a "political" - i.e. legislative - responsibility is also reasonable. But "because the constitution" doesn't work because the constitution is mute on the specifics on which the court was asked to rule. They can't overturn what doesn't exist.