Besieged by baseless accusations of a rogue FBI, the possibility of another government shutdown, and the President’s continuing feud with the news media, one threat to American democracy that drives political polarization is being widely overlooked: gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering, or the process by which legislators create districts that unfairly tilt their electoral prospects, is not new. Since America’s founding, politicians have sought to draw districts for electoral advantage. In 1788, just after Virginia ratified the Constitution, former Governor Patrick Henry persuaded the state legislature to remake the Fifth Congressional District in Virginia so that Henry’s nemesis, James Madison, would run against the formidable James Monroe. Newspapers at the time criticized Henry’s scheme as an attempt to violate the principle that free people should choose their representatives.
The word “gerrymander” derives in part from Elbridge Gerry, who as governor of Massachusetts in 1812 signed into law a redistricting plan to benefit his political party (the second half of the word derives from “salamander” in reference to the odd shaped districts). Opponents argued that the law “inflicted a grievous wound on the Constitution” and “silences and stifles the voice of the Majority.” It is no coincidence that Henry and Gerry, adamant opponents of the Constitution, saw it fit to rig elections in their favor.
In a nation as polarized as ours, enabling politicians to choose their voters, as opposed to voters choosing their politicians, is profoundly problematic. Even though over 70 percent of Americans—conservatives, moderates, and liberals—believe that “those who may benefit from redrawing congressional districts should not have a say in how they are redrawn,” 37 state legislatures draw congressional boundaries, and only six of those states have either advisory or backup commissions. Only Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington use an independent commission.
Of course, gerrymandering is likely not the sole reason for political polarization. Numerous scholars have observed that voters have increasingly arranged themselves into like-minded communities, creating districts that are more ideologically extreme. Similarly, the balkanization of the news media, and the proliferation of partisan driven news outlets has enabled people to create their own echo chambers, contributing to the tribalization of communities.
Yet, gerrymandering still plays a significant role in exacerbating partisan polarization. By creating safe districts, gerrymandering reinforces hyper-partisanship, provides incentives for candidates to take more extreme positions, and imposes obstacles to pragmatic compromise that is a hallmark of successful policy-making. For most members of Congress or state legislatures, the biggest electoral challenge is a primary, and with an already polarized electorate, there is little room for compromise.
Recent litigation illustrates how gerrymandering has been used as a political weapon and why it threatens our democracy. On Monday, The Supreme Court declined to block a Pennsylvania state court ruling that had declared that the state’s Congressional map was unlawfully gerrymandered. The state Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that Pennsylvania’s congressional district map is a partisan gerrymander that “clearly, plainly and palpably” violates the state Constitution. The court banned the current map from being used in this year’s primary and general elections, and ordered that a new map be submitted by February 15. Redrawing the map has huge political implications. Republicans control 13 of the 18 House seats, but outside experts say that a nonpartisan district map could move as many as three of those seats to Democrats.
In November 2016, a three-judge panel ruled that the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2011 redrawing of State Assembly districts to favor Republicans was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because it aimed to deprive Democratic voters of their right to be represented. The plaintiffs cited the fact that Republicans won 48.6 percent of the two-party vote, but held 61 percent of the State Assembly’s 99 seats. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last October in the case, known as Gill v. Whitford.
In Maryland, there have been legal challenges over the boundaries of the Sixth Congressional District since they were drawn in 2011. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Benisek v. Lamone, a case in which Republicans allege that Democratic state lawmakers redrew the district to retaliate against voters who supported a longtime Republican incumbent, which violated the First Amendment by diminishing their voting power.
And here in North Carolina, a panel of federal judges struck down the state’s congressional map last month. Republicans hold 10 U.S. House seats, while Democrats hold three. Citing the claim of the Republican legislator in charge of redistricting who said, “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country,” the judges argued that Republicans unconstitutionally drew the congressional map to gain a political advantage. Days later, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court’s ruling, and questions remain about the fate of this case, known as Rucho v. Common Cause.
While the Supreme Court has rejected the plaintiffs’ claims in previous cases dealing with political gerrymandering, the justices’ decision to add two such cases for the spring’s docket is welcoming. The Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in a case concerning racial gerrymandering in Texas shows that progress achieved on voting rights in recent decades is under threat. The ability of legislators to choose their voters as opposed to the other way around, is troubling for anyone concerned about extreme partisan polarization and Congressional gridlock. The arguments advanced by plaintiffs show the incompatibility of partisan gerrymandering and a democratic process where citizens can choose their elected officials without legislators tilting the playing field.
While gerrymandering may not be the root of all political problems, and while redistricting alternatives may be more complicated to implement than acknowledged, it is long past time for lawmakers and judges to address the inherently corrosive effects of the practice. Only through nonpartisan redistricting reform can our politics more accurately reflect the views of voters, and our democracy perfected in accordance with the founders’ vision.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.