Which court? The supreme court rules that gerrymandering is 100% AOK by them so long as it isn't done for the express purpose of racial disenfranchisement.

Gerrymandering to warp democracy and give the members of your party more power than members of the other party are OK, according to our current supreme court.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/partisan-gerrymander...

Even the racial disenfranchisement line has been significantly weakened - there have been cases going up with clearly racially biased districts but so long as there is some other property the districts could have been gerrymandered based on (i.e. "Urbaness") then the courts have let it through.

Right now, anything goes (and the fact that gerrymandering with the explicit intention of entrenching a political party isn't illegal is bonkers).

That's just not right. The courts have largely held to "non-justiciable political question".

The courts have held that gerrymandering based on race is unconstitutional.

Gerrymandering based on political advantage has yet to be ruled unconstitutional and continues unabated.

Districts drawn via a published, mathematically derived method would be a hell of a start.

Alternatively district abolishment and proportional distribution of delegates would also pretty much resolve it - even with a mixed geographic and proportional system where some delegates do have specific areas and others are floating delegates that are used to balance out proportions while allowing local districts to chose an advocate specifically for them.

Man, tell us how you really feel. :-) That was beautiful.

That's not entirely true, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause