Gerrymandering: A Threat to Democracy

Although the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal,” Thomas Jefferson could not have guessed that, many years from when he first penned those immortal words, the votes of all men would not be counted equally. Even in an age of legally enfranchised minorities, the electoral system in the United States is designed such that the votes of some can have much less real effect than the votes of others. Among the ways that this can be accomplished is through a method of legislative redistricting known as gerrymandering. This unethical process refers to using government power to align voting districts in such a way that the practical effect of individual votes are diluted, and it is a process which is simultaneously damaging to the real voting power of the American citizenry and one which can be replaced by a more equitable districting system.

Given that in most states the legislative body is empowered to draw the boundary lines that govern election districts, it is unsurprising that these bodies could, from time to time, draw these lines in such a way as to mitigate the influence of some parties and amplify the influence of others. This process is called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, “defined as biased district lines designed to help a group and hurt its opponents” (O’Laughlin, 165), is typically accomplished through two means: “packing” and “cracking.” Packing refers to the process of drawing boundary lines in a way that a district contains the maximum possible amount of one group. This is often done to both allow political minority groups to achieve power in a region they otherwise could not, or to diminish the effect of that minority group in other regions. A similar strategy, cracking, occurs when districts are designed to spread out the influence of a population group, to deny them the critical mass of power in any one area. Cracking can also be utilized with a larger population to spread out a powerful group to sway many different elections, instead of the one or several that they would have influence over if they were to be “packed” into a small number of districts. Gerrymandering, then, is not always a way to rob a group of power, it is often used to grant unfair power to groups that otherwise would not have it.

No state exemplifies the effects that gerrymandering can have on the competitiveness of electoral races than of California between the years 2002 and 2012. In 2002, electoral districts were redrawn in such a way as to virtually ensure that only incumbents would win congressional elections. The fact that only one incumbent was defeated for re-election in this decade-long timeframe is a testament to the stunning success of this strategy. According to the New York Times, the change away from this unfair strategy came when “after years of allowing state lawmakers to determine Congressional district lines, for 2012, an independent commission, created by voters in a referendum, drew districts without an eye to protecting incumbents” (Nagourney). The immediate and extreme effect that this change had on the congressional elections of that state, now some of the most highly contested in the country, is a telling indication of how horribly misaligned the districts were. The drastic effects of gerrymandering are not limited to California, however. According to the Brookings Institute,

“While during the last quarter-century the average number of marginal House seats, i.e., those decided within the range of 55 to 45 percent, has been a historically low 58, the number plummeted after the most recent round of redistricting… 27 in 2004. Only four house incumbents were defeated by challengers in the 2002 general election, the smallest number in American history” (Mann).

This extreme lack of turnover in elected officials also leads to a disturbing lack of accountability. Because they have virtually guaranteed their own reelection through gerrymandering, there is no compelling reason for lawmakers to act in the best interests of their constituency. The only defense that their constituents have against corrupted representatives, namely voting them out of office, has been taken away from them.

Not only does gerrymandering lead to an unfair advantage for incumbents, it also leads to the composition of legislatures being grossly out of sync with the results of popular votes. Such are the factions within a democracy and a republic. For example, according to Sam Wang writing in the New York Times: “In North Carolina, where the two-party House vote was 51 percent Democratic, 49 percent Republican, the average simulated delegation [by vote percentage] was seven Democrats and six Republicans. The actual outcome? Four Democrats, nine Republicans” (Wang). This sort of imbalance occurred not only in North Carolina but, as Wang continues, throughout the United States: “Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin” (Wang). The cause of this phenomenon is the “wasted vote effect.” If, for example, a legislature can “pack” fifty thousand additional Democrats into a district where the Democratic candidate is already ahead by a colossal margin, those fifty thousand votes can be excluded from other races which might be much closer. In effect, the votes of these fifty thousand Democrats are robbed of all power. By ensuring that Democrats won by enormous amounts in a few states while accomplishing narrow Republican victories in others, the Republican Party was able to accomplish a large number of seats despite losing a popular vote.

It is not difficult to see that a conflict of interest lies with legislative bodies drawing the boundary lines for their own elections. Internationally, many nations have laws prohibiting gerrymandering. The United Kingdom, for example, has a nonpartisan “Boundary Commission” whose responsibility is to divide regions for representation in the House of Commons. In the United States, the state of Iowa has a very unique system in which the state appoints an independent, apolitical board to make decisions about districting, but with one important detail, to quote the Iowa Legislative Guide to Redistricting: “To ensure compliance with these requirements, the Iowa Code provides that data concerning the addresses of incumbents, the political affiliation of registered voters, previous election results, and demographic data other than population head counts not otherwise required by federal law are not to be considered or used in establishing districts” (Legislative Guide to Redistricting). In other words, the redistricting commission was denied information that would be critical in any instance of gerrymandering. Without knowing the party affiliations, racial demographics, or even population counts, it is impossible to gerrymander a district to favor a candidate. With a system like that of Iowa, gerrymandering is essentially extinct. It is precisely that sort of system that would save the American congressional system from the deep pit of inequity and corruption into which it has so helplessly fallen.

The United States was the midwife of modern democracy, pioneering advances into representational government that had not ever been attempted in the contemporary era. There are instances, however, in which the American democratic state has fallen behind other states in the western world. One such area is the lack of prohibition on a transparently corrupt and contemptible legislative gambit: gerrymandering. Through gerrymandering, politicians have utilized loopholes written into their own authority to subvert the power of the voters and remove the only thing that ensures their honesty: the knowledge that the voters could vote them out of office. Some areas of the United States have made progress, and it is through the continuing effort of honest politicians that the specter of gerrymandering might finally be put to rest.

Works Cited

Nagourney, Adam. "California Set to Send Many New Faces to Washington." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. 25 Nov. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all.

Mann, Thomas. "Redistricting Reform." The Brookings Institute. N.p., n.d. 25 Nov. 2013, www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2005/6/01politics%20mann/p04%2007.

Wang, Sam. "The Great Gerrymander of 2012." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. 25 Nov. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all.

O'Loughlin, John. "The Identification and Evaluation of Racial Gerrymandering." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72, 2 (1982): 165-184.

"Legislative Guide to Redistricting." Published by the Iowa General Assembly -- Legislative Service Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013, < www.legis.state.ia.us/Central/LSB/Guides/redist.htm.