“I would prefer not to.” That was the invariable reply of the title character of Herman Melville’s 1853 story “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” when asked by his employer to perform a task.
It’s also a phrase you might use to describe the opinion of the Supreme Court in its latest redistricting (or gerrymandering) case, Gill v. Whitford. This was expected to be a closely divided case and one which many observers hoped would establish a clear legal standard to overturn partisan gerrymanders. But all nine justices concurred in the central point of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion that the plaintiffs lacked standing — harm “in a personal and individual way” — needed to bring the case. Evidently they “would prefer not to” resolve the issue of when partisan district-drawing violates voters’ constitutional rights.
