As Mr. Moto points out, the idea that this was a process of continual improvement towards democracy is strained, at best, because in 2004 the “appointment until the special election” option was expressly proposed and expressly rejected.
And to be clear: there’s nothing in this question that’s remotely an indictment of Democrats alone, in my mind. We have only to look at the various gerrymandering efforts of Republican-controlled legislatures to realize that, as if there were any doubt in the first place.
But while gerrymandering efforts can have thin (OK, virtually translucent) rationales for change and even reversal from year to year (“Hey, the population and demographic changed, so THAT’S why we shoudl redraw this district to look like a twisted dodecahedron!”) the example in Massachusetts is a bit more laid bare. And even then, we have exactly two changes… hardly enough to base any sort of judicial action on.
I think from a personal, we’re-all-buddies-here-on-the-message-board level, it’s kind of ridiculous to not acknowledge the Massachusetts action as nakedly partisan, just like countless Republican actions have been. No claims about the purity of either party, OK?
But from a more official, judicial-remedy type standpoint, two times doesn’t come near enough to establishing a pattern. So the answer to Dorf’s inquiry is, quite simply: there’s nothing to be done. And since the EFFECT of the decisions in Massachusetts has been (thus far) to guarantee only that a departing Senator will be replaced by a senator from his own party, I can’t get too worked up over this violation of democracy.