> That requirement does not extend to political parties
I think political parties are a non-entity as far as the US constitution (small 'c') is concerned, aren't they? So the court doesn't have any opinion on them and there are no requirements.
I think political parties are a non-entity as far as the US constitution (small 'c') is concerned, aren't they? So the court doesn't have any opinion on them and there are no requirements.
1. It would be harder to create such an independent commission in the US, because Americans (and especially Republicans) have worked tirelessly to make every corner of their lives another opportunity for partisanship. Americans elect _far_ too many officials, and those elections almost invariably end up partisan because a party has the muscle to win you the election. For example, in the US all those Supreme Court justices who wrote this decision and its dissents are in effect partisan, even though in principle it's not supposed to be a partisan body. In the UK the Supreme Court is just a bunch of judges that other judges and lawyers thought should be elevated, not a partisan issue.
2. Because Parliament is sovereign the Parliament has to actually enact those boundaries after the commission proposes them. Historically there is always a political party that thinks these changes are a bad idea conveniently for them because it somehow always seems to be the party that will likely lose seats. Because the Commission itself is impartial which party is angry about this varies, but in recent history it's Labour. When proposals to actually apply the current recommendations are coming up, I can always expect about one Facebook post a week from somebody who had no idea how boundaries work, or that there's an independent commission in charge of this, who has been convinced "somehow" that the party they don't like has conspired to take seats away from the one they do like via these boundary changes. Big surprise.
3. To be fair we got here because historically UK boundaries were left unchanged for so long that we had the Rotten Boroughs, a situation where some random land owner might own an area which was entitled to be represented by an MP even though literally _nobody_ had lived there for decades. You will not be surprised to learn that this caused _horrendous_ levels of corruption, bad enough that the act of parliament to fix it was routinely called the Great Reform Act (legally "Representation of the People Act 1832") and had to be rammed through by the same sort of extreme measures we've seen Democrats talking about in the US to fix its democracy.
Some countries, like the UK, have a constitution but no Constitution.