The Undemocratic Process of Partisan Gerrymandering

Chapter 11 of the Struggle for Democracy touched on various key elements of the United States Congress such as constitutional foundations, representation, congressional elections and voting, legislative processes and checks and balances. This chapter is particularly significant in our overall examination of the effectiveness of American democracy because it brings formal politics to the center stage. In this post, I want to address one of the most monumental threats to modern American democracy: gerrymandering.

Of the three branches of government, the House of Representatives should be the most representative of the people’s will. It should live closest to the people. However, today, the House of Representatives is the least representative branch of our government. This lack of representation in the House stems from state legislators ability to cheat the electoral redistricting system by gerrymandering. As described in the text, gerrymandering is when legislators draw the electoral districts of a state to help their party win seats. In turn, the party in power gains more congressional and legislative seats than it should according to the state’s electorate. This occurs in two ways, “packing and cracking”. “Packing” is when legislators draw the districts so that the opposing party’s voting power is concentrated in one district, which weakens their overall power in the state. “Cracking” is when legislators draw the districts so that their opposing parties voting power is spread throughout the state, making them the minority in most districts. Not only does gerrymandering undermine the opposing parties representation, it also furthers the United State’s deep partisan divide by decreasing the amount of competitive seats in congressional elections. Thus, incumbents in “safe seats” have little incentive to build compromise with their opposition.

It’s unquestionable that the process of congressional district redrawing will always entail some political calculation, however, there is a point where too much political calculation severely undermines the opposing parties representation, as I will demonstrate below.

Considering the only rules for redrawing districts is that they must be equal in population and contiguous, it’s clear the legal framework of redistricting does little to prevent state legislators from abusing their power. Take Pennsylvania’s case for instance. After the 2010 census, Republican legislators in Pennsylvania drew some of the worst district lines to date, which, unfortunately for Democrats, were used in the past three congressional elections.

(District 7 is the worst…)

Although Republicans only received about half the statewide vote, they maintained control of thirteen of the fifteen seats in the House each year as a result of this blatant gerrymander, while Democrats, who won between 46-51 percent of the statewide vote, held the same five seats year in and year out. Recently, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Republican state legislators to redraw the state’s districts in time for the 2018 midterms. The court held that the districts state Republicans drew in 2010 violated the state constitution because they were “aimed at achieving unfair partisan gain” and “undermines voters’ ability to exercise their right to vote in free and equal elections.”

Indeed, the new map reflects the partisan composition of the state more so than the initial map that was heavily tilted toward Republicans. However, Republicans have been reluctant to accept the new map as it is and intend on challenging it in court. In February, Donald Trump urged Republican leaders to fight the new map via Twitter:

Regardless of what happens in Pennsylvania, I’m happy to see action being taken against gerrymandering. However, it is unlikely Pennsylvania’s decision will further the momentum against partisan gerrymandering across state borders other than setting an example. Going forward, I would love to see a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would put an end to this shameful and undemocratic practice. Or, perhaps, a 28th amendment against gerrymandering. The former is probably more realistic. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case challenging the Republican drawn districts in Wisconsin and the Democratic drawn districts in Maryland, so stay tuned. Given that the federal court is hearing cases from both Democrats and Republicans, this would be an optimal time for the court to appear unbiased partisan wise in implementing new regulations on partisan gerrymandering.

What are your thoughts on partisan gerrymandering? Also, if you could implement a 28th amendment, what would it be?

3 Responses to "The Undemocratic Process of Partisan Gerrymandering"

Cassandra Martin says:

April 9, 2018 at 8:34 pm

Hi William,

I thought that this was a great overview of gerrymandering and the dangers it can threaten our country with. I agree with you that gerrymandering is a very concerning practice commonly conducted by corrupt politicians that care more about keeping their seats than representing their districts. This presents a danger to popular sovereignty because in this case, it is an abuse of power by the few, to make possibly unrepresentative decisions for the many; the politicians may have little regard for the actual opinions of people in the district.

There are a few points I wish you would’ve touched on more. For one thing, you immediately jump into the House of Representatives instead of considering Congress as a whole. I can understand why you did this because the House of Representatives is much more likely to be affected by gerrymandering since it is based on population and not statehood like the Senate, but I think it would’ve added to your discussion to include a discussion of the Senate in this post. I also think you could’ve delved deeper into the relationship between polarization trends and gerrymandering, as this could show a significant way that a threat can be posed to our democracy.

As far as your discussion on representation, I agree that gerrymandering allows politicians to selectively draw districts, but I am concerned by the way you connected that to the legislative branch being the least representative of all branches. When the textbook discusses demographic representations, it covers race, gender, income inequality, sexuality, etc. as ways that Congress is extremely unrepresentative. As far as districts go however, it says that for the most part, the representatives chosen for each district still usually model what constituents want. In addition, while gerrymandering does compromise competitive elections, it may also help districts where there is a dominant minority population, such as the “earmuff” district in Chicago, which gave the majority-Hispanic district better representation. Therefore, I think it would be beneficial to consider where redistricting may help our democracy.

I don’t think it is feasible to write a 28th amendment against gerrymandering, particularly because it is already an unacceptable act when done for partisan gain. Therefore, I don’t see what clearly defined steps would be taken to implement this change. Overall, this was a very insightful post, and I enjoyed reading it!
Thomas Cody says:

April 10, 2018 at 11:55 pm

William,
Thank you for a very interesting post! I agree that situations like the old districting map in PA are far from good, but the creation of the new, fairer map seems like a bit of a fantasy to imagine every state doing something like this. Democrats want as many democrats in the House as they can get, and the same goes for the GOP. For states like California or Alabama that are solidly blue or red, there does not seem to be any incentive to not gerrymander their districts. For Pennsylvania, a fairer map will satisfy more voters their as it is a very purple state with a pretty even Republican/Democrat split. Unless the Supreme Court comes out with a major decision against it, I do not see gerrymandering as an issue going away anytime soon.
Kayla Corbin says:

April 11, 2018 at 12:57 pm

Thanks for the post!

I definitely agree that gerrymandering is a norm in this country that shouldn’t be so readily accepted. Even though there will always be some political influence into how district lines are drawn, the blatant disrespect of citizen’s right to vote freely and fairly shouldn’t be tolerated. I think it could be helpful to acknowledge the history of gerrymandering to add context. When you go back and see how gerrymandering has evolved, and that it stemmed from slavery, black codes and Jim Crow Laws, it grounds the argument better in terms of the intentional injustices being caused by district lines.
With that being said, I believe there are times where redistricting helps minority groups who are under represented in government. But that’s not to say that it doesn’t harm many minorities as well. Not to mention that studies have shown that even when majority minority districts are created, the quality of polling places, and accessibility to polling places is lower than those districts with less minorities. So even though it gives more opportunity for free and fair voting, it doesn’t actually equal the playing field.
Overall, it was a great post, and I agree that there should be action taken against lawmakers that draw unfair district lines. However, it is unrealistic to think that all lawmakers will change their ways or adapt a new method of district lining.

Thanks again for the post!

Comments are closed.