Gerrymandering-Part I

For 213 years, Americans have complained about partisan gerrymandering – ‘it is unfair’. Like it or not, it is how the process functions, and despite all of the concerns or questions raised, Americans have something many other people around the world envy: a remarkably stable system of governance in which it is seldom compromised – but no system is perfect. Why? 

The process of redrawing political boundaries for local, state and congressional seats will commence once more after the 2030 census. This has been the requirement soon after the approval of the Constitution of 1781 which determined each state’s population data was necessary to define population, or boundary lines of representation. Of course, there have been attempts to keep politics out of the redistricting process when the desire for power is sought by an individual or group of individuals, but despite all efforts it did not happen. Why? Due to human nature – that being power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As an example, in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause, that partisan redistricting—where elected representatives from the majority political party draw boundary lines to try to give their party an advantage—is a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts; and it is quite probable out of the reach of the People. The court went on to point out that partisan redistricting is ‘nothing new’ to the American form of a democratic republic. But what exactly is gerrymandering? 

When Americans participate in a census, they read or hear, chiefly from politicians, about gerrymandering and how ‘unfair’ the process is to the People. But is it? Prior to independence, the colonists, especially the founders, were familiar with gerrymandering at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The practice and the term used to identify it was provided by then Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry (1744 – 1814), who was notable for the use of what became known as Gerry-mandering, the division of electoral districts for partisan political advantage; he was responsible for creating a map of oddly shaped partisan state senate voting districts in several parts of Massachusetts in 1812, one that looked like a salamander, which awarded Gerry’s party an advantage in the impending election. A local artist added a head, wings, and claws to the strange shape that was the governor’s new home district and declared it looked like a salamander, and a quick-witted friend decided to create an improved name for the action, “Gerry-mander”. As a result of Gerry’s inventiveness, other states soon adopted the practice. 

However, in an effort to limit the power of the executive office of a state, the drafters of the Constitution gave state legislatures the authority to draw congressional boundaries, showing that they expected politics to be part of redistricting and although partisanship is considered a dirty word today, it is defined by the views and opinions of individuals, as well as the political party they favor, have about history, culture, society, politics and public policy, they support. To levy a rule that legislators cannot take the interests of the People into account, or the interests of the voters who elected them, removing the authority to draw political boundaries after each census would destroy a fundamental element of America’s democratic system. Whether the People like it or not, politics will always play a role in redistricting. It is a necessary evil. 

Politics has been, is, and will always be involved in who runs for office, who voters choose to represent them, and what those candidates do once they get into office. There really is no method in keeping political considerations out of redistricting, for in reality, although there are strong arguments against trying to do just that, to actually do so is unmanageable. The one thing that is known about partisan redistricting is that it is an imprecise discipline. Despite what nearly all political consultants claim, the American voter is and remains unpredictable. Furthermore, the United States performs redistricting only once every ten years, specifically after each national census, the structure of districts can and do alter because the American people are a substantially mobile populace. Hence, there is an abundance of instances of so-called “safe” districts at local, state and federal levels being drawn by one political party or another, that have been acquired by an opposition party. But what of independent individuals who could draw more reasonable lines? 

Some propose taking politics out of the redistricting process by establishing so-called “independent” redistricting commissions that take the power to draw political lines away from state legislatures. Unfortunately, all this will do is move the politics and partisanship from the forefront to behind closed doors. Such commissions, whose members are chosen by the political parties and other government officials, that are despite their public assertions to the contrary, are inevitably made up of individuals with partisan interests. Then again, there are also numerous examples of another American phenomena that makes effective partisan line drawing difficult—the tendency of many voters to split their tickets between candidates of different political parties, depending on whether they are voting for their local city council member, their congressional representative or the president of the United States. For example, 2019 analysis by the Capital Research Center showed, California’s “independent” redistricting commission actually drew more partisan congressional districts than the partisan Republicans controlling the Texas state legislature did. And what’s worse, such commissions are unaccountable to the people. So, does the quandary remain with the voters? 

Voters who are unhappy with the districts drawn by legislators, county commissioners or city council members can vote them out of office. Voters can’t do that to appointed commissioners who draw partisan districts that voters disagree with – you can’t take politics out of redistricting, but you can implement common-sense rules that prevent misshapen districts that you need a GPS to navigate. Those rules should require that districts be as compact and contiguous as possible. They should follow the lines of natural boundaries like rivers and mountains and political boundaries like city and county lines. That will also lead to representatives who have an interest in representing all of the diverse people of a city, rather than just those who are concentrated in one part of that city. 

In a much-awaited decision, the Supreme Court held on Thursday in a 5-4 decision that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts – and as such it lies beyond the People. “This should come as no surprise, since it’s the same conclusion the court reached the last time, this issue was before it in 2004 in a case out of Pennsylvania, Vieth v. Jubelirer. This time, plaintiffs in both Maryland and North Carolina challenged congressional redistricting maps, claiming they discriminated against Republicans in Maryland and Democrats in North Carolina. They argued that such partisan redistricting (i.e. engaging in politics when drawing legislative district lines to benefit candidates of one political party) violated the First and 14th Amendments, as well as the elections clause and Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. District courts in both cases ruled in their favor.” 

The court’s conclusion, though it “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void.” Remedied the dilemma by pointing out that it is the responsibility of states and Congress, which have the power to reform the process, and not the courts, to do so. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the plaintiffs and the dissenters in the cases “seek is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.” This will not reach a resolution through the courts, only through the People. But whatever competence the court may have, it has no “commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide” them. This is an example of the “rare circumstance” where it is the Supreme Court’s “duty to say ‘this is not the law.’” It is the duty for the People to decide. 

Sources: 

Federalist Papers Eighty-five 

A Founding Father in Dissent | National Archives 

Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From? | Smithsonian