It was litigated in the courts in the USSR too. Not so much discussed in public but I am not sure that matters.
The whole issue of making such a taboo topic is that it makes it hard for opposition to mobilize. However in the US we have other ways of doing that. Hyperpartisanship is something which has a remarkably similar effect while at the same time allowing us to say with a straight face that we are not a police state.....
I'm afraid this is what you get when you architect your political system to institutionalize gerrymandering. I suspect that hyperpartisanship, and the thorough political dysfunction we're seeing over in the US at the moment, is pretty much an unavoidable consequence of developing very stable partisan electoral ghettos.
In the UK such gerrymandering is taken very seriously because it's a fundamental attack on the integrity of the electoral system. People found guilty of it have had their political and personal lives ruined, and quite rightly too. But in the US it's standard practice. I don't think this is taken seriously enough.
...and wouldn't it be nice, if we could actually stop this kind of problem before it became something the courts dare not touch, spoken of only with rare whispers. Those types of situations historically end up rather nasty for all involved.
It's probably a bad sign when the sane legal solution to avoid a rebellion (or worse) seems like fanciful wishful thinking.