OUR DEMOCRACY’S CHALLENGES Part 3: GERRYMANDERING AND HOW TO STOP IT
Our democracy’s challenges are serious and longstanding. This post describes ways to stop the gerrymandering of U.S. House and state legislative districts and its subversion of democracy. This previous post presented an overview of the challenges to our democracy, including the undemocratic selection of the president via the Electoral College (as well as how to fix this). Another previous post described the lack of fair representation in Congress, including due to the gerrymandering of House district boundaries.
(Note: If you find my posts too long to read on occasion, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)
In our democratic republic, where power is placed in the hands of elected representatives, fair representation requires that our elected officials accurately represent the population’s characteristics –politically, racially, gender wise, etc. Gerrymandering of some U.S. House districts and some state legislative districts (some of it quite extreme) means that representation is not fair and democracy is subverted.
Fair and competitive elections are necessary for a healthy democracy as they ensure that the will of the voters is reflected in their elected representatives. One outcome of gerrymandering is that very few elections are competitive as districts are drawn to predetermine the outcome. In 2022, only 30 out of the 435 U.S. House seats had a margin of victory of less than four-percentage points (i.e., 52% to 48% or closer). [1]
The boundaries of U.S. House and state legislative districts are redrawn every ten years based on data from the decennial Census. The drawing of boundaries is done by the states and historically by state legislators. Given growing partisanship and a Voting Rights Act seriously weakened by the Supreme Court, legislators in some states, aided by the enhanced capabilities of computers to process very detailed data and maps, have engaged in extreme and effective gerrymandering for partisan advantage. The best estimates are that in the 2022 elections, through gerrymandering, Republicans captured between 15 and 20 more seats in the U.S. House (out of 435) than would have been expected otherwise. This gave them a majority, and therefore control, in the House by just five seats. In the U.S. House, and at the state legislature level as well, it’s clear that gerrymandering can dramatically affect the partisan control of legislative chambers. (See this previous post for more details.)
One result of super-charged gerrymandering has been that redistricting maps are much more frequently challenged in court. When courts find districts illegal and require them to be redrawn, the once-in-ten-years change in districts can become a change in districts every two years for each election. [2] However, some of these court cases can drag on for years.
The most common way to combat gerrymandering is to remove the power to draw district maps from state legislators, who are inherently partisan, and instead have an independent commission draw them. Eight states (AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MI, MT, and WA) have done so through legislation or ballot initiatives. Common Cause is one organization that has mobilized and supported efforts to create independent redistricting commissions. Key elements of an effective and truly independent commission include:
· Politicians are prohibited from participating in or influencing the process, and the commission has the ultimate power to establish district boundaries;
· Commission members are non-partisan or some members with a balance of party affiliation are included;
· Strong conflict of interest rules are in place for commission members; and
· The process is public and open so regular citizens can have input, as well as monitor progress and decision-making.
Independent commissions have worked extremely well when they are well insulated from political influence. When they aren’t, the process can devolve into partisanship and gridlock. [3] Districts drawn by well-designed independent commissions result in fairer representation of a state’s population, more competitive elections, fewer court challenges (and fewer successful ones) of redistricting maps, and a more public, transparent, democratic map development process.
Having a clear, prioritized set of rules for making decisions on where to draw boundaries is also important and can be put in place whether an independent commission is used or not. For example, districts should: [4]
· Meet all legal requirements, including one person, one vote;
· Be geographically contiguous and reasonably compact;
· Respect the integrity of communities of interest to the extent practicable, including providing racial and language minorities the opportunity to elect representatives; and
· Respect existing municipal and other political boundaries to the extent possible.
At the federal level, the Freedom to Vote Act has been introduced in Congress with strong Democratic support. (It’s a slimmed down version of the For the People Act.) It would (among other things): [5]
· Ban partisan gerrymandering,
· Strengthen protections for minority populations, and
· Make it easier and quicker for voters to get unfair districts struck down in court and replaced with fair districts.
I urge you to contact your state legislators and ask them to support an independent redistricting commission for developing maps for legislative and U.S. House districts.
I urge you to contact President Biden and your U.S. Representative and Senators to ask them to support the Freedom to Vote Act. You can email President Biden at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments or you can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or the switchboard at 202-456-1414. You can find contact information for your U.S. Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your U.S. Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
[1] Leaverton, C., 1/20/23, “Three takeaways on redistricting and competition in the 2022 midterms,” Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/three-takeaways-redistricting-and-competition-2022-midterms)
[2] Dayen, D., 1/29/24, “America is not a democracy,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-29-america-is-not-democracy/)
[3] Li, M., 9/19/22, “Anti-gerrymandering reforms had mixed results,” Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/anti-gerrymandering-reforms-had-mixed-results)
[4] Rudensky, Y., & Lo, A, Jan. 2020, “Creating strong rules for drawing maps,” Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/creating-strong-rules-drawing-maps) See also other resources at the Brennan Center on redistricting, fair representation, and gerrymandering.
[5] Li, M., 10/13/21, “The Freedom to Vote Act is a big deal for redistricting,” Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/freedom-vote-act-big-deal-redistricting)