Voters cast their ballots at the town hall in the town of Dane, Wis., on Nov. 8, 2016. ((AP Photo/Wisconsin State Journal, Amber Arnold)/AP)

Articles about gerrymandering, including the Sept. 23 front-page piece "Court case offers a peek at how lawmakers pick their voters," should include a reminder that the real cost of rampant partisan map-drawing goes far beyond mere politics and deeply into policymaking and the quality of governance.

Far more important than the Republican vs. Democrat head count after a gerrymandered election is the type of Republican or Democrat elected. As Wisconsin state Sen. Mark Miller (D) said about being safe enough to not have to worry as much about constituents who disagree with him, "I don't think that makes me a better legislator." Indeed. Not having to understand, care about or take into account voters in the "other party" has increasingly contributed to the kind of compromise-phobic gridlock and partisan free-fire zone that is crippling our governance today.

The Supreme Court must step in to reverse the trend.  

Thomas M. Sneeringer, Washington