Why Should Something Be Done to Eliminate Gerrymandering?

Thoughts from the Middle

Why Should Something Be Done to Eliminate Gerrymandering?

By

Robert James Fischer

What is Gerrymandering?

In simple terms Gerrymandering is the process of drawing political boundaries that give a particular party an advantage over the opposing party.  Gerrymandering is NOT what our founding fathers foresaw.  They envisioned a representative government that is proportional to the various views of its people.  For example if 60% of the population is from the Elephant Party and 40% are from the Donkey Party, then elected representatives should be in the same proportion.

The practice is named after Governor Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts.  In 1812 the Governor, concerned over the growing strength of the Federalist Party, managed to pass a law that allowed for redistricting.  The sole purpose of this legislation was to create voting districts that gave advantage to the Governor’s Democratic-Republicans.  One of the districts was so distorted that Boston Gazette journalist Elkanah Tisdale labeled the salamander shaped district “The Gerry-mander.”  This term has continued through the present day.

Even though in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts should reflect substantial equality of population, many jurisdictions continue to create politically advantageous districts.  While the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering, it has not established a clear standard.  In 2018 the Court looked at cases in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maryland.  According to Steve Vladeck, University of Texas Law School professor, “The common thread in the court’s gerrymandering decisions this term (2018) has been to generally make it harder for plaintiffs to bring these claims, and to generally allow states more flexibility and deference in drawing congressional and state district lines.”  The issue that clouds what is blatantly political is the Constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.”  The key seems to be taken from North Carolina case, Gill v. Whitford, where on a 9-0 vote, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that “concrete and particularized” injury denied anyone the right to vote. (de Vogue, Ariane and Watkins, Eli, CNN, June 25, 2018).

A Simple Example

Here is a simple example of how Gerrymandering works, based on materials presented by Christopher Ingraham (Ingraham, How to Steal an Election: a Visual Guide, www.washingtonpost.com, downloaded 3/30/2018)

Using Ingram’s model, imagine a state with 50,000 people.  Thirty thousand belong to the Donkey Party while the rest belong to the Elephant Party.  Also imagine that they all live in an even grid with Donkeys on one side of the state and Elephants on the other.  For voting purposes we need to divide the state into five districts.  Each district will send a representative to the state capitol. Based on the founding fathers’ conception, representation should be proportional.  That means there would be 3 Donkey Party representatives and 2 Elephant party representatives.

Given the geographic distribution of voters in the state, it is possible to create 5 districts that will result in the desired representation.  (See Figure 1).

Figure 1

Fair Representation

District        District                      District                            District                    District

1                   2                                    3                                        4                             5

Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant

Donkeys win 3 districts; Elephants win 2 districts

 

However, once the Donkey Party controls the state legislature, through the process of Gerrymandering they are allowed to redraw the districts.  If they draw the new districts as shown in Figure 2, the representation is no longer proportional and is unfair to the Elephant Party.  The new district system gives all 5 representatives to the Donkey Party and none to the Elephant Party.

Figure 2

Unfair but Compact Representation

District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
1			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
2			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
3			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
4			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
District			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant
5			Donkey	Donkey	Donkey	Elephant	Elephant

 

Donkeys win all 5 districts; Elephants have none

A third scenario would have the Elephant Party win a majority in the legislature.  Once they have control of the government, through Gerrymandering they could redraw the districts as shown in Figure 3.  In this scenario the Elephant Party would likely gain control of 3 districts.  The Donkey Party, with 60% of the voters, would likely win only 2 districts.

 

Figure 3

Neither Fair nor Compact Representation

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

1

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

4

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

2

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

District

3

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

5

Donkey

Donkey

Donkey

Elephant

Elephant

Donkeys win 2 districts; Elephants win 3

 

In many areas, the gerrymandered districts are extremely convoluted appearing as thin wavy lines or other distorted figures.

What should be done?

Given the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision, jurisdictions need to be held accountable for their redistricting.  This simple step would ensure that the vision of our founding fathers is restored.  Today’s technology allows for computer programs that can create districts representative of population diversity. Some state legislatures have tried one of the following:

• Advisory commissions – composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This is an advisory body.  The legislators retain redistricting powers.
• Backup commissions—composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This group provides input when an impasse on redistricting is apparent.
• Politician commissions—composed of non-elected, but political officials.
• Independent commissions—composed of non-legislators and non-public officials, generally prohibited from running for public office for a specified period after the completion of their term on the commission. This type of commission is viewed as being the most independent of political considerations.