.png)
By: Ford McCracken
The Basics
Every 10 years, the United States performs a census, or a survey filled out by everyone in the country, to determine the population of the country, states, and cities. After each census, the legislature of each state is tasked with the responsibility of redrawing congressional districts, areas from which people are elected to the House of Representatives. But since either Democrats or Republicans hold the majority in state legislatures, the majority party will oftentimes use this to their advantage and redraw congressional districts to benefit their own party. This is known as gerrymandering, a practice that is not new to our country.
The term gerrymandering first appeared in the year 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a state senate map into law that heavily favored his Democratic-Republican Party over the Federalists. Although Gerry didn’t create the map himself, his position as Governor led him to take the fall. The second part of the word comes from people saying the districts were shaped like a salamander, a slander for how irregular they looked. These two parts combined, Governor Gerry’s name and salamander, became the word “gerrymandering”.
The modern form of gerrymandering can be laid out in the following hypothetical scenario: if Party A had a 60-40 majority in the affiliation of a state’s voters, it would make sense for around 60% of the congressional seats to go to Party A. But if Party B held a majority in that state legislature, they most likely drew a map that favors them. Party B could divide up the areas where Party A has a majority and draw just enough into Party B territory, so they would win that seat. This scenario could end up with 7/10 seats going to Party B, a stark contrast to how voters cast their ballots.
This is just one very basic example of partisan gerrymandering. There are multiple places in the US that have, even recently, implemented congressional maps that take gerrymandering to the extremes.
North Carolina
After redistricting began in the year 2011, right after the 2010 census, North Carolina began redrawing its congressional districts. The state legislature in North Carolina was held by a Republican majority, and the first map they put forth was a perfect example of racial gerrymandering.
North Carolina’s 12th congressional district, when first redrawn, did not seem to make any sense geometrically. It was a very narrow district that ran through areas of three big cities in the state. When overlaid with a map of where the majority of black people live in North Carolina, it became very clear what had happened. The NC-12 was drawn to pack the areas with the highest black population into one congressional district, which was significant because black people typically split for the Democratic Party. This is a strategy used in gerrymandering called packing, where the Republicans draw a district, no matter how irregular, with the highest concentration of Democratic voters possible. This reduces the number of seats that could be potentially won by Democrats.
The Republican majority legislature also redrew the state senate districts, once again, packing black people in areas like Winston-Salem and Greensboro into one district. Keeping control of the state senate in North Carolina was essential for Republicans because if Democrats were losing the majority of congressional seats and had no say in redrawing them, it was a perfect storm.
But in 2016 and 2017, federal courts ended up crashing this party. They ruled that both the congressional map and the state senate map were unconstitutional, due to the fact that they were very clearly racially gerrymandered. As a result, the state legislature was forced to go back to the drawing board, and they weren’t allowed to look at racial demographics. This time, they looked at party demographics, drawing a map that essentially cracked liberal urban areas open, splitting up their votes and making the majority of districts have a very narrow Republican majority. This was known as partisan gerrymandering. In 2018, this map got its first test in the midterm elections.
In the North Carolina statehouse, Democrats had the majority of votes, at 51%. But they only ended up winning 46% of the seats, a minority. In the state senate, Democratic candidates received 50% of the votes, but only 42% of the seats, a minority. In Congress, Democratic candidates received 48% of the vote, but only won 23% of seats. These numbers don’t exactly make sense at all.
The Supreme Court ruled on this due to the irregularity of the results and essentially declared that although this issue was out of their hands, state courts could rule on the matter. The North Carolina Supreme Court did, and they struck down the state senate and house maps, ordering the legislature to redraw them again. Now, the maps are much fairer than they had been previously. State courts in other states, such as Pennsylvania and Florida, have since done something similar.
Gerrymandering is certainly not unique to the Republican party, as the Democratic party is also guilty of partisan gerrymandering. In the 2018 midterms in New York, Democrats won 66% of the popular vote but 78% of the districts. California had previously had similar issues but has since resolved this by taking gerrymandering out of the hands of politicians. New York has done the same, and their policy will begin in 2020.
Solutions to gerrymandering
Recently, a software engineer in Massachusetts developed a program that draws congressional districts based on data from the 2020 U.S. Census. The program prioritizes compactness and equal population in each district, and the results make a lot more sense than districts drawn by people, and they certainly look better on paper. In an era where technology is clearly evolved enough to solve the problem of gerrymandering, why is it being left in the hands of people? Well, convincing politicians and voters to trust a computer to draw their congressional districts are placing a lot more faith in technology than most people are comfortable with, especially among the older generations. But there is another solution, one that is fair and leaves redistricting up to people.
The State of California has implemented a program that has put a stop to gerrymandering in their state. Starting a few years ago, an independent commission of citizens now draws the districts, taking it completely out of politicians' hands. They also prioritize compactness and use data from the 2010 Census. Since California implemented this policy, the State of Arizona has followed suit. Washington, Idaho, New Jersey, and Hawaii also have an independent commission, but the members are appointed by politicians. Iowa, New York (starting this year), and Connecticut have an independent commission that presents their ideas to the state legislature, which then votes on the plan.
As more and more states commit to taking gerrymandering out of the hands of politicians with apparent success, one question remains: Are politicians willing to give up their power in favor of democracy?
Discussion Questions:
Is technology a reliable option for important issues like redistricting?
Is an independent commission truly impartial?
Should state legislatures be allowed to view demographics such as race when drawing congressional maps?
Sources Used/Further Reading
Comments