Doug Johnson asks a tough question.  Obviously a voter approved "good government plan" would be an ideal goal.  There is however another public policy issue afoot.  Citizens that arbitrarily get tossed around from district to district during the gerrymander warfare are deprived of continuity of representation.  Folks seeking constituent services are suddenly talking to someone new, etc.  The stability of decade long terms, based on the most recent Census data, even it reaches to an '03 or '13 year is a public benefit.  Keeping reapportionment limited to Census counts or official re-counts, would have prevented the Texas problem, and the new Georgia map.  Judges deciding these cases should be looking at population equality, respect for political subdivisions where possible, compactness, and contiguity.  Election returns and political demographics should not be the business of the courts.

-Michael Richardson

Question:

 

If a state's legislators in 2001 or 2011 enacted or enact an extreme gerrymander, and the voters react and either throw them out of office or (in those states where they have direct power) repeal the new districts, is the argument that the newly-elected legislators and/or the people are not allowed to correct the gerrymander by drawing an improved / corrected / 'good government' plan?