Getty

Although a panel of federal court judges recently found North Carolina’s congressional voting map unconstitutional for its extreme gerrymandering benefitting Republicans and ordered the maps be redrawn, the Supreme Court announced late Thursday that it will block the order, meaning the map will likely stay in place for the 2018 midterm elections.

But what you might have missed is that in the brief put forward in the case by a number of conservative state lawmakers, one of the reasons they cited as to why it would be unreasonable to redraw the maps by January 24 is because it would dissuade donors from contributing:

From the brief (emphasis mine):

Moreover, a complete upheaval of the regularly scheduled election processes of North Carolina, without this Court having the opportunity to review the decision, will certainly have a chilling effect on contributor‚Äôs willingness to provide funds. As this Court stated in Buckley v. Valeo, ‚ÄúGiven the important role of contributions in financing political campaigns, contribution restrictions could have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy.‚ÄĚÔĽŅ

It would seem like a fairly drawn congressional map that does not disenfranchise voters is more essential to a healthy democracy than ensuring the continued flow of campaign contributions from wealthy donors. But that’s just me.