The Supreme Court’s ideological bent has tilted sharply to the right since 2015, when it recognized same-sex marriage rights in a tight 5–4 victory for equality. With federal abortion protections now in danger of falling, many worry that marriage equality could be next. Yet the quiet campaign by the Christian right to chip away at legal recognition of same-sex unions in the name of “religious liberty” may prove to be a far more insidious threat than an adverse Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court’s likely decision to overrule Roe v. Wade despite popular support for abortion rights is one of several cases that have diminished public trust in the Court. Its new conservative supermajority seems intent on pursuing a right-wing agenda, even if it upsets long-standing precedent and threatens its own legitimacy. The Court’s perceived radicalization has sparked calls to reform processes such as how members are appointed, how they wield power once instated, and how long they remain on the bench. These and other proposals must be evaluated to address antidemocratic flaws in our judiciary.

New York’s latest round of redistricting left many deeply dissatisfied despite yielding some of the most competitive and politically balanced voting maps in the country. The greatest flaws in the process can be attributed to poorly designed reforms adopted in 2014, ambiguous map-drawing rules, and Democrats’ refusal to create replacements after their proposed maps were struck down as a partisan gerrymander. Opponents of redistricting reforms might point to New York to argue against them, but the real lesson is the need for stronger, more robust changes.