Level the playing field

Today, on election day, we stand entirely steeped in the brew of national politics as the remainder of Duke students cast their votes alongside the rest of the country. A time such as this seems the least pressing to talk about gerrymandering since congressional districts do not ostensibly relate to a presidential election, especially one as polarizing as this one. Still, today we reevaluate the tradition of gerrymandering, reminding students that even though they have cast their ballots, many necessary political conversations should continue.

Our home state is frequently taken as an exemplar of gerrymandering. Our own campus is situated in an oddly shaped congressional district that sinews and slithers its way to pick up Duke, Chapel Hill, Raleigh and Elon—nearly all of the universities and areas with generally liberal populations. This district is not nearly as tortured as the former 12th District, the drawing of which was ruled to be unconstitutional. Who produces these vexing polygons to segment our voting districts, and why? The answer is simple: the party in power when the lines are drawn creates them to stay in power.

This is why gerrymandering should be such a concern, even when there are countless other issues on voters’ minds. Gerrymandering and the intention behind it are plainly undemocratic. In one sense, gerrymandering generates unrepresentativeness. A core tenet of a representative democracy such as ours is that the people are fairly represented, which drives the idea behind one person, one vote. If districts are gerrymandered such that a voter is trapped as either an artificial permanent majority or permanent minority, his or her vote truly is valued differently than that of someone in another, more objectively drawn district. To some degree, this is the case at Duke. While casting a vote is extremely important, the North Carolina state legislature appears to have made votes on this campus less valuable than those cast in other locations. Even worse, communities of color are generally the most frequent targets of gerrymandering, which places yet another obstacle against those who have been consistently disenfranchised.

Gerrymandering also bestows false security on our congressmen, who may feel confident during reelections simply due to the particular makeup of their districts. The practice can remove an external motivation to truly fight for constituents, since in some sense, the congressmen are guaranteed votes from the majority party of their district. Many representatives value the advantages given to them by gerrymandering so much that they even dismiss anti-gerrymandering advertisements as race-baiting in lieu of truly fighting for their constituents.

In light of this, we need to consider alternatives. Some states have already taken the initiative on this front by instituting independent redistricting commissions. These bodies impose restrictions on simultaneously holding public office and being in charge of drawing districts so as to prevent the inherent temptation of wielding one’s power to extend it. Another option involves developing and utilizing some sort of computer program to introduce a means of objectivity into the districting process. While other processes are being considered, the most important push will come from voters. Both major parties engage in this behavior that seems counterintuitive to the essence of a democracy itself, which provides an opportunity for us to remind our representatives that we do not support this means of acquiring and sustaining political power. We cannot allow discussions about this key political issue to fade after today, and we cannot allow those who represent us to ignore our calls for change.