The Supreme Court or Congress did Abdicate on Their Responsibility

  The Supreme Court ruled this week that it has no authority to protect the citizens against partisan gerrymandering. So, a state filled with Republican lawmakers, such as Utah, can take a community that otherwise would be Democrat, and simply shave into it areas that are Republican, so the vote of that district then swings to Republican.
   Such a practice goes against fairness. A community filled with Democrats should be allowed to elect a representative who is a Democrat.
   But, the Supreme Court says such gerrymandering is legal as far as the federal government is concerned. It says it has no jurisdiction to overturn laws that gerrymander this way.
   Does it? The Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government." Now, the argument becomes whether a Republican form of government is just one based on representation, or whether a Republican form of government implies fair play and fair elections.
   But, don't leave it just with that one statement in the Constitution to determine if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction here. The Constitution says the Supreme Court's judicial power shall extend to all cases involving not only that Constitution, itself, but to "the Laws of the United States." If, then, there is a law specifying that elections shall be fair, the Supreme Court is within its jurisdiction in requiring fair elections.
   If there is a void here -- if there actually is no federal law suggesting elections shall be fair -- then it becomes incumbent on Congress to pass such a law as quick as the Supreme Court justices march out court having made their decision.
   I would wonder if there not only is not a single federal law speaking not just to fairness, in general, but specifically to gerrymandering. You tell me there is no such law? There is no federal law dealing with gerrymandering? Or, if there is, it doesn't require fair play?
   What a void. If so, why has Congress failed to pass such legislation?
  You may argue that regardless what federal law says, this is a states-rights issue. Indeed, I believe the Supreme Court said its decision applies only to cases being adjudicated in federal courts, and left open that state courts can make their own determinations.
   But, that is not so. The Constitution does make this a federal concern. There is language right in the Constitution dealing with this. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." If this passage does not apply to this circumstance, I don't know what it does apply to.