CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO GUARANTEE STATES A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. WHEN ONE OR TWO URBAN AREAS DOMINATE AN ENTIRE STATE WITH DIFFERENT POLITICS, IS THAT A VIOLATION? Red State, Blue City.

But that’s not the concern of this piece from The Atlantic, shockingly:

Recent events in red states where cities are pockets of liberalism are instructive, and cautionary. Over the past few years, city governments and state legislatures have fought each other in a series of battles involving preemption, the principle that state law trumps local regulation, just as federal law supersedes state law. It hasn’t gone well for the city dwellers.

Close observers of these clashes expect them to proliferate in the years to come, with similar results. “We are about to see a shit storm of state and federal preemption orders, of a magnitude greater than anything in history,” says Mark Pertschuk of Grassroots Change, which tracks such laws through an initiative called Preemption Watch. By the group’s count, at least 36 states introduced laws preempting cities in 2016.

State legislatures have put their oar in on issues ranging from the expansive to the eccentric. Common examples involve blocking local minimum-wage and sick-leave ordinances, which are opposed by business groups, and bans on plastic grocery bags, which arouse retailers’ ire. Some states have prohibited cities from enacting firearm regulations, frustrating leaders who say cities have different gun problems than do rural areas.

I think they’re saying that cities have more black people. That’s pretty racist of them. They deserve to be preempted, with that sort of attitude.

And more seriously, it’s rich to see the left, which has been all about squashing respect for local beliefs and customs, suddenly interested in local autonomy.