This is approximately an equivalent of "because they can". There must be a deeper explanation, or a history of the law which can give us a better understanding.
Everything that happened in that case was a function of state, not federal, law.
Gerrymandering + loss of local news coverage = incredible levels of corruption get baked into the system.
That's true, but the point is that a retiree can choose where they retire to within the United States. Informing oneself about the legal risks associated with guardianship abuse in a given jurisdiction seems every bit as worthwhile as a state's tax laws or weather, topics which retirees certainly tend to take an interest in.
> Gerrymandering + loss of local news coverage = incredible levels of corruption get baked into the system.
Dammit, we've only got an inch of topsoil left!