Political Science

Partisan Gerrymandering: A Danger to Democracy

What is it and why does it matter?

Legislative redistricting should not be controversial. It should be a dull and tedious process where each state draws new district lines based on population shifts and concentrations. Unfortunately, redistricting is more often than not a constant battle between those wishing to manipulate the maps for their own political gain and those fighting to protect the vote.

We know this all too well when it comes to racial gerrymandering. The federal government intervened with The Voting Rights Act of 1965 because state legislators were drawing districts based primarily on race. By doing so, state governments were able to dilute the vote of minorities by breaking up these communities into separate districts — a method referred to as cracking.

This means that minorities from the same communities were voting on different ballots and for different races completely. By being separated, they were unable to exert influence in their respective congressional and state legislative races because they were put in convoluted, majority white districts.

Sometimes, this process of racial gerrymandering was done with the NAACP’s stamp of approval, as well. When Republican state legislators wanted to limit minority influence in elections and the NAACP wanted to increase minority-elected representatives to Congress, both groups came together to draw majority-minority districts.

These districts didn’t separate minority communities into a bunch of districts, it clustered them all into the same district (otherwise known as packing). This way, the district would undoubtedly run minority candidates and those candidates would win. Majority-minority districts are exactly what they sound like in which minorities make-up well over 50% of the total district.

What did the Republican state legislators get out of this deal, you ask? Let’s say there are 13 congressional districts in a hypothetical state where minorities often vote Democratic and white voters typically vote Republican.

If we pack minority voters into only 3 of the 13 districts, then the following occurs: (1) Democrats will win the 3 minority districts by massive margins and the winners could very well be minorities themselves and (2) the Republicans will win the remaining 10 districts.

Now, let me tell you that this was not a hypothetical example. This is exactly what happens in North Carolina.

Today, North Carolina has only 3 districts in which Black and Latino individuals make-up a majority of the population, and these districts are the only ones held by the Democratic Party. The majority White districts in North Carolina are always held by the Republicans.

This process can be seen in numerous other states where none of the congressional races are competitive. Yet, racial gerrymandering has been deemed both a violation of the Voting Rights Act and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So, how do state legislators continue to use the redistricting process to give their own party a better chance at winning more seats?

The answer is partisan gerrymandering.

Partisan gerrymandering works in the same way that racial gerrymandering does, except it cracks and packs communities based on political party instead of race. This still makes races noncompetitive, and it usually looks exactly like the previous racial gerrymander — it’s all a matter of semantics.

So, the current tactic by state legislatures is to continue drawing districts based on political affiliation (which often means racial segregation of districts), and then argue in court that they drew partisan maps to help their own party.

Come again? Yep, you read that right. Lawmakers are saying the quiet part out-loud by claiming their intent is to draw the lines based on where Democrats and Republicans live. Using partisan gerrymandering as a defense in court is a way to show that race was not taken into account. If you are a Republican legislator, then you argue in court that you drew your maps to benefit Republicans. That’s all you have to do.

The courts have caught up to explicit gerrymandering based on race, but the Supreme Court just last year decided that… they don’t have to decide anything in regard to partisan gerrymandering. In a 5–4 vote, the Court stated that federal courts have no jurisdiction when it comes to a state legislature’s authority to draw their own district lines.

The conservative majority maintains that “political questions”, such as partisan gerrymandering, are simply beyond their reach. Thus, the only remedy to gerrymandering based on political affiliation is voting for legislators who will draw fair maps.

Although redistricting can sound boring on its face, know that the process is being weaponized to disenfranchise you.

But, there’s another problem: State legislatures do not only draw their own congressional maps, but also their own state House and Senate maps as well. This means that the districts for state representatives and state senators are also gerrymandered, making it close to impossible to vote out the legislators drawing the noncompetitive maps.

A great example of this is Ohio. Although the Democrats almost reached 50% of the vote for statehouse candidates in 2018, the Democrats only won 37% of the seats. So, in a state where Democrats and Republicans virtually split the vote down the middle, the Republicans hold a super-majority in government.

As a result, those legislators get to draw maps that guarantee 8 of the 12 congressional districts go to the Republicans.

I’ve been noticeably cruel to the Republican Party when it comes to gerrymandering because they are by far the worst offenders across the country. However, the Democrats are guilty of the same tactics in states like Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan. It doesn’t matter who is doing it, the gerrymandering strategy is unconscionable and dishonest.

Although redistricting can sound boring on its face, know that the process is being weaponized to disenfranchise you. Gerrymandering on any level is not indicative of a true democracy, and we must speak out against it. If we fail to do so, we forfeit our seat at the table.