One can imagine what it must be like for a political party when the realization finally sinks in, that moment when it’s clear its actions fail to meet the promised expectations. It’s like a huckster realizing the mark isn’t buying the con. Worse still, it’s when the audience knew it was being played long before the huckster did.
The target knows what’s what.
That’s when the huckster has a choice: Head for the exit or run a new con.
Like rig the game.
That’s exactly what we’re seeing in the latest wave of redistricting battles. Lines are being redrawn not because populations have shifted or communities have evolved, but because holding onto power feels precarious.
And that’s the part worth paying attention to. If a party can’t win on better ideas and policies, it changes the rules.
In South Carolina, State Senator Shane Massey, a Republican leader, stood up and voted against the president’s wishes and his party’s redistricting effort to eliminate the state’s sole Democratic congressional seat. He didn’t deliver a fiery speech. He didn’t make accusations. He didn’t grandstand.
He made an argument that was hard to ignore: If you believe in your ideas, you shouldn’t have to engineer the map to win.
Despite his unpopular stance within his party, Massey acknowledged the potential consequences. “I don’t want to be a participant in further eroding federalism or diminishing the essential role of states,” he said. “The states are not mere political subdivisions of the federal government. The states are not here to take orders or direction. The states are sovereign, independent creatures.”
Massey added, “There are likely consequences for me, personally, taking the position that I am right now. I’m comfortable with that. I may not like it, but I’m comfortable with it.”
“Too many people in power want to do whatever it takes to stay in power,” Massey said. “I believe the legitimate use of power in this case is to make people safer.”
That’s not the language of outrage. That’s the language of responsibility and, more importantly, restraint.
It’s rare to hear a politician speak like Massey.
Despite what some might call his heroic stance, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster appears to disagree. He has called for a special session to address redistricting, which is set to begin today (May 18, at the time of writing).
If that happens, the legislature will have less than a week to enact a new map. Early voting in South Carolina begins on May 26 for the June 9 primaries.
One common defense for redrawing maps is that, if the other party were in power, it would do the same. That may be true, but it doesn’t make it right. Another claim is that these moves are legal, procedural, and routine.
That doesn’t make them right, either.
What’s happening across the country doesn’t look like confidence. It looks like something else entirely.
Call it what it is: A quiet admission that winning on the merits is no longer sufficient, let alone a guarantee.
When districts are redrawn to dilute minority representation, when maps are engineered to protect incumbents rather than reflect voters, and when political power is secured not by persuasion but by geometry, the message isn’t subtle.
It says: We don’t trust the outcome if voters decide.
That’s not a strategy. That’s surrender.
Surrender to fear. Surrender to short-term advantage. Surrender to a politics that prioritizes control over consent.
Journalists should recognize this for what it is, not merely a partisan maneuver but a signal.
Redistricting is a fight about legitimacy.
It raises a fundamental question: Do elected officials tailor their message to win over voters, or do they shape voters to secure a win?
Massey’s objection matters because it puts the question back where it belongs. It suggests that the system’s integrity isn’t a secondary concern. It’s the whole point.
And it exposes the uncomfortable truth behind the current scramble to redraw lines: When power is secure, it doesn’t need protection like this.
Legality isn’t the same as legitimacy. Journalists, of all people, should recognize that distinction.
The job isn’t just to report what is allowed. It’s to examine what it means.
What this moment reveals is simple: The mechanics of democracy are being used to avoid its outcomes.
That should concern everyone, regardless of party.
Once the system is structured to guarantee results, the results themselves stop meaning much. Lawmakers become more focused on staying in power than on serving the public interest. This isn’t leadership. It’s political short-sheeting.
Massey’s quiet dissent is a reminder that not everyone in power is comfortable with that trade-off. Perhaps others will come around to his view: Do better for the people, or they will move you aside.
It’s also a reminder of what genuine political strength looks like.
It doesn’t redraw the map.
It stands on the ground it already has and makes its case.
Author’s note: Last week’s column on the FCC investigation into the Disney/ABC television station broadcast licenses contained a typo that is fully the fault of the author. The sentence should have read: Streaming platforms are now the preferred way to watch.