Gerrymandering: Side Stepping Democracy

The foundations of America’s democracy are centered around the idea that individuals should be prevented from having too far-reaching and long-lasting power in government. The rejection of a monarch, the creation of checks and balances in the branches of government, the necessity of term limits for federal and state offices, and many other aspects of this nature were put in place to prevent select elected officials from overstepping these bounds and taking away authority from their constituents. Despite this intention, elected officials continue to take advantage of the US government’s complicated and nuanced structure to secure their seat in a position of power or influence others. How, may you ask? Through the perfectly legal process of gerrymandering at present.

Gerrymandering is defined as the process in which government officials restructure districts within a state in order to gain an advantage for “themselves, a political party, or another constituency.” (Source) This practice stems as far back as the early days of American government, with well-known figures of history such as Patrick Henry, one of the Founding Fathers and former Governor of Virginia, engaging in the same process to gain an advantage over a political opponent. Since the beginning of its practice, gerrymandering has been used to support racist platforms and suppress the vote of people who disagreed with the party in power.

As it stands today, racial gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, many legislators have attempted to suppress the vote of marginalized groups of people such as BIPOC, particularly in states where large sections of the voting base were affected by systematic oppression. Similar to voting laws such as the “grandfather clause” and educational requirements to qualify to vote, legislators would refuse to restructure districts to accommodate the dramatic increases in the voting population. In a series of Supreme Court rulings, gerrymandering on the basis of racial groups was considered to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. (Source) However, the more active form, known as political or partisan gerrymandering, remains an ongoing issue and allows for elected officials that perpetuate systematic oppression to stay in power. And, as of this last year, the Supreme Court has decided via Gill v. Whitford that they will not partake in any decisions relating to gerrymandering’s legality. (Source)

This decision has essentially opened the door for current officials to engage in present-day gerrymandering as there is no effective or efficient way to regulate their actions. Currently, after every census, elected officials can alter the district lines of their voting base, either to dilute their opponents or to concentrate their support in a particular area. Now, unless Congress decides to engage in the lengthy procedure of drafting and passing legislation that would make this practice illegal, or if a ballot initiative miraculously proves successful, gerrymandering will prevail as a legal gray area that will continue to disenfranchise millions of Americans. (Source)

Although legal, gerrymandering is a clear violation of fundamental democratic ideals, such as the belief that elected officials should represent the majority of their constituents’ opinions. With this practice, a supportive minority could easily rule out a critical majority if district lines are structured in a purposeful way. While Congressional restructuring happens every ten years, the process can result in millions of Americans’ effective disenfranchisement. In a report given by the Center for American Progress, its researchers found that in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, 59 seats in Congress, which represent 40 million Americans, were altered due to gerrymandering, resulting in the loss of a majority-supported representative for those voters. (Source).

The intention of partisan gerrymandering is clear: to ignore the needs of constituents for one’s own political gain. In practice, it limits the ability of elected officials to be held accountable for their actions. In a fair, representative situation, there would be a system of accountability between constituent and official.

Once elected, a Congressman, Senator, or Governor would be held to the promises they made during the election and would be expected to do what is in the majority’s best interest. If they fail to follow through, they would be subject to a fair election that may result in their replacement by a more compelling, effective candidate.

However, since the Supreme Court has left the decision of political gerrymandering’s legality to the legislative branches of our government, the solution to solving this issue must be approached differently. The Indivisible Project outlines a method of encouraging a fair redistricting process without the option of federal court interference. Those motivated to change the system of partisan and political gerrymandering can seek to educate themselves about the platforms of state legislators and elect those that support redistricting reform. (Source) With an absent judicial branch, legislative reform is one of the only paths to change when it comes to gerrymandering, and state legislatures are the first step in achieving it. Outside of electoral options, advocating for redistricting reform and calling for public transparency relating to the redistricting process can both be powerful motivators for change. Transparency can act as a deterrent to any pointed redistricting measures, as those paying attention to state legislatures and officials’ actions will be informed of any such actions, positive or negative, that they take and can act accordingly.

Outside of a system of accountability between officials and voters, there have been measures to encourage the introduction of an independent redistricting organization, a proposed practice that would involve third-party organizations analyzing census results and conducting redistricting if necessary. In an article in the Washington Post, independent redistricting was found to be effective, as it was conducted without the motivations of political parties or individual officials. (Source) While everyone holds some type of political bias, these independent organizations focus on redistricting based on population changes instead of on creative ways to keep a political party in power. Due to the failure of the Supreme Court to regulate partisan gerrymandering, advocating for options like these are some of the only ways to support reform.

As the November election approaches, the idea that millions of votes can continue to be silenced is frightening. Through an unregulated system perpetrated by the government’s lack of interference, partisan gerrymandering will remain a very present part of this country’s voting process. As 2020 approaches and brings with it redistricting, understanding local officials’ positionality and advocating for accountability is more important than ever to bring about change.