The integrity of our voting process, which is the bedrock of American Democracy, is threatened by three factors.
One is voter-suppression efforts based on bogus claims of rampant voter fraud.
Another is the electoral sabotage by Russians.
The third is “gerrymandering.” It occurs when legislatures redraw legislative-district boundaries to keep themselves in power. It’s nothing new. In fact, the word itself was coined by the Boston Gazette in 1812. The Democratic-Republican Party redrew the boundaries of a Boston-area district to make it less likely the Federalist Party would win control of the state senate. In order to skew the district to their favor, they drew a serpent-like map that some said resembled a salamander. The governor was Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and in 1813 President James Madison’s vice president. When people saw the redrawn-district map, ridicule erupted, and one wit called it a “Gerrymander,” a portmanteau word comprised of (Elbridge) Gerry and sala(mander).
Gerrymandering has long been a political tactic to secure and maintain power within legislative districts and, by extension, national power.
This is how it’s done:
Every 10 years, after the U.S. Census is completed, states must redraw the boundaries of their legislative districts to make sure all contain equal-as-possible populations. In most cases, legislatures decide the boundaries, meaning the party that happens to be in power gets to draw the lines.
There are two main ways to gerrymander a district. One is “cracking,” which means splitting prospective voters into multiple districts so they cannot have as much voting power in just one district. This often means dividing voters by their demographics (rural, suburban, racial, religious, white collar, blue collar and other) according to which parties those voting blocs have tended to favor.
Another way to gerrymander is called “packing” – concentrating many voters of one persuasion into a congressional district to reduce their electoral power in the other districts.
There are many other sly methods, but the end result is gerrymandered districts are less competitive in elections, favoring one party over another because of the jiggering of voting blocs and boundaries. Such districts can become “safe” for a particular party or a particular candidate, ensuring a hold on power.
Some argue, with good reason, that gerrymandering is a main reason for legislative deadlock nationwide. That’s because legislators from “safe” gerrymandered districts don’t have to worry about opposition back home. They can cultivate ideological “purity” and become unwilling to compromise, knowing they will be re-elected in their safe district. In 2013, Texas Rep. Ted Cruz, during his snit-fit against ObamaCare, led the Tea Party in shutting down the government, all of them knowing they would be re-elected, thanks to gerrymandering.
Both parties have indulged in this partisan chicanery. In recent years, we hear more about Republican gerrymandering because they happen to control so many state legislatures.
Gerrymandering undermines the American principle of one person-one vote (every vote should count equally). Let’s say in some state, Party A has a numeric advantage in voting habits – 60 percent versus only 40 percent for Party B. If Party B should happen to gain control, its members could “creatively” slice up or condense (gerrymander) Party A voters so they can achieve wins in only a couple districts. That could ensure Party B more than 50 percent of legislative seats when they are – numerically, anyway – a minority in that state.
California and Iowa, to name two, now have non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions that do redistricting. The same for Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Legal challenges to gerrymandering, including in Minnesota, have taken up so much time and expense. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a gerrymandering scheme in North Carolina, a state also notorious for its blatant voter-suppression efforts.
It’s time to restore faith in our voting process. Computers are good tools for analyzing population-demographic data and coming up with models for fair district boundaries that could be agreed upon by a non-partisan commission.
Trouble is, will legislatures agree to divest themselves of the subterfuge? Not without a fight. In Minnesota, there have been bills already proposed (by Republican Reps. Mary Kiffmeyer and Sarah Anderson) that would forbid the legislature assigning its redistricting powers to any sort of non-partisan commission.
Without shoring up the integrity of our voting system, our faith and trust in our governance, which is already dangerously fragile, will further erode to a frightening degree.
Democracy equals free-and-fair voting. Please support the establishment of redistricting commissions in every state in this nation, starting with Minnesota.
