Making Elections Great Again (MEGA)
Ending Gerrymandering and Restoring Competitive Elections
This is Civic Way’s seventh essay on state and local elections. In this essay, we offer a few ideas for ending partisan gerrymandering. In our last essay, we discussed recent state-based redistricting reforms and their limitations. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving government agencies across the US.
Highlights:
More and more states are taking on gerrymandering with impressive—even inspiring—reform efforts
Those striving to preserve their control over elections should not be underestimated; gerrymandering will likely survive in some form, perhaps in the guise of reforms
If we want competitive elections and candidates that care more about good governance than narrow ideologies or their own status, if we want to solve problems, we must end extreme gerrymandering
The Momentum of Redistricting Reform
A handful of states are showing that the redistricting process can be reformed, that extreme partisan gerrymandering can be neutralized, if not ended entirely.
In Colorado, the governor helped manage the appointment process to ensure that neither party dominated the redistricting commission. Washington’s bipartisan commission unanimously approved new legislative maps. Michigan’s new independent commission model offers another interesting approach to curtailing partisan influence.
California offers the most ambitious model for abating partisanship. Those with any partisan involvement are prohibited from serving on its independent redistricting commission. For example, the law bans registered lobbyists and large political donors from serving as members. It also bans anyone who has been a federal or state candidate (within the last ten years) or worked on behalf of political candidates or parties.
Another encouraging development. Several states are doing more to involve citizens in redistricting. They are taking advantage of new open-source online map-drawing tools (e.g., Dave’s Redistricting, DistrictBuilder and Representable). Many states furnish such tools to citizens (e.g., California, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington). Some states are even incorporating citizen Do-It-Yourself (DIY) maps in the process.
The Partisan Counteroffensive
Lest we get too optimistic and take our foot off the pedal, redistricting reforms face daunting headwinds. Gerrymandering remains a tantalizing weapon—for both parties. We should never underestimate the needs of the donor and political classes to control politics..
At the national level, some prominent, well-heeled groups have emerged on all sides of the gerrymandering issue. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) champions the “right of state legislatures to determine electoral districts” and promotes election laws that preserve gerrymandering. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee monitors redistricting and files lawsuits in several states. Such groups claim nonpartisanship, but we should not assume that their motives are wholly nonpartisan.
At the state level, both parties are hooked on gerrymandering. Even Democrats who once opposed gerrymandering are unlikely to eliminate it this cycle in the states they control. Their excuse? The GOP’s 2021 redistricting initiative (i.e., the National Republican Redistricting Trust) threatens the Democrats’ narrow hold on the US House, a majority they believe they are duty-bound to defend. A never-ending cycle.
In virtually every state, politicians continue to resist reforms and gerrymandering continues to plague our democratic processes. A few examples are highlighted below.
Arkansas – after delaying an independent redistricting commission referendum, Republicans hope to split the Little Rock area into three strong GOP congressional districts
Illinois – to respond to the loss of one congressional seat, Democrats will likely merge two GOP districts (one seat is held by Adam Kinzinger, one of ten Republicans who supported the ex-President’s impeachment)
Indiana – Republicans are eliminating the state’s only competitive seat
Maryland – Democrats will likely eliminate the state’s sole remaining Republican seat
Michigan – Republicans are continuing to challenge the constitutionality of the new voter-approved redistricting commission and process
New Hampshire – Governor Sununu vetoed a bipartisan redistricting bill to create an independent citizen redistricting commission (it would have been the first legislatively-created independent commission)
New York – many Democrats hope to make the upstate district held by John Katko, another pro-impeachment Republican, more heavily Democratic
North Carolina – the Republican legislature will further gerrymander districts to strengthen its firewall against the state’s anticipated demographic changes and potential Democratic gains
Ohio – in the face of a strong statewide Democratic vote, Republicans hope to further expand their huge majorities in the US House delegation and both chambers of the state legislature
Oregon – Democrats hope to turn two swing seats into solid Democratic seats
Texas – the proposed Republican plan would slash competitive districts from 12 to one
With so much at stake for the two political parties, the fight to preserve gerrymandering may disappoint, but it should not surprise. As long as we allow the two major parties to drive the process in so many states, the battles will only continue. And our politics will continue to deteriorate.
Strategies for Ending Gerrymandering
We can end extreme partisan gerrymandering, but the key to ending this sordid practice is for citizens to seize control of the redistricting process. Some recommended strategies are outlined below.
Amend the US Constitution to end gerrymandering (e.g., amend Article I, Section 4 to explicitly enable citizens or legislatures to assign the redistricting function to any entity, prohibit redistricting that unduly benefits partisan interests or reduces competition and adjust maps more frequently)
Amend state constitutions to end partisan redistricting (e.g., establish an independent commission, specify redistricting criteria, clarify the relative importance of such criteria, establish other redistricting standards, allow redistricting updates and ensure public involvement and transparency)
Provide independent redistricting commissions with sufficient resources to meet their charge (e.g., ensure reliable funding, engage professional legal counsel, statisticians, demographers and improve access to nonpartisan redistricting experts like the Tufts MGGG Redistricting Lab)
Establish a robust public engagement process (e.g., mobilize nonpartisan civic groups, offer data and free online mapping tools, establish a help desk for facilitating DIY maps, sponsor a civic map drawing contest and conduct a series of accessible, professionally-facilitated public hearings)
Develop, refine and adopt fair, competitive legislative maps (e.g., prepare interim maps based on census data estimates, use proven software and algorithms to create broad range of alternative maps, rank proposed maps using an objective metric and adopt a final map in accord with the criteria)
Explore opportunities for reducing the packing of minority voters in majority-minority districts, creating more competitive districts and increasing the statewide influence of minority voters
Establish an efficient process for adjusting the adopted maps after the initial election cycle (e.g., adopt an objective metric like efficiency or proportionality for assessing maps, mobilize volunteer monitoring teams and continually assess the overall competitiveness and representativeness of districts)
One of the biggest flaws of the current redistricting process is that it occurs only once every ten years. Changing federal and state legislative districts every ten years strains the political system. And it fails to keep pace with America’s ever-increasing mobility. By the end of each decade, demographic changes often stretch the one-person one-vote standard in some districts to the breaking point.
Instead, we should adjust the legislative district maps more frequently (e.g., every four or five years). The US Constitution does not prevent redistricting between censuses. Unlike before, we have the tools to adjust maps more frequently. We can use periodic US Census estimates to detect significant demographic changes. We can use readily-available redistricting software and nonpartisan experts to generate and evaluate alternative maps.
Two More Obstacles to Redistricting Reform
There are at least two issues that appear to divide some reformers—redistricting criteria and majority-minority districts. While unanimity is almost always elusive, these two inter-related issues must be resolved. Failing to do so could undermine future reform efforts.
To eliminate partisan gerrymandering, states must employ objective redistricting criteria. They also must rank the criteria in order of importance. This is where reformers often part ways. In particular, some reformers believe that communities of interest should be assigned the highest priority, even at the expense of other criteria like compactness, partisan neutrality and competitiveness. This is well-intentioned, but naïve.
The most important criteria should be competitiveness, partisan neutrality and compactness. By elevating communities of interest over all other criteria, reformers leave the door ajar to gerrymandering. In most large states, political operatives are quite adept at using the communities of interest criterion to further cynical partisan schemes—legal and moral cover for gerrymandering.
A related issue involves majority-minority districts. More precisely, should they be more competitive? Defined as districts where minorities comprise at least 50 percent of the population, majority-minority districts were created to avoid 1965 Voting Rights Act violations. With about 11 percent of the US House districts, majority-minority districts give racial minorities a stronger voice in Congress.
Gerrymandering, however, can subvert the goal of majority-minority districts. Packing such districts with minorities can protect the incumbents, reduce the electoral competitiveness of other districts and dilute the influence of minorities statewide. Efforts to make all districts more competitive and increase statewide minority influence are likely to face strong opposition from advocates of majority-minority districts. That opposition must be confronted respectfully and honestly.
Making the Right Decision for Democracy
Reformers must overcome their differences when democracy is at stake. We must do what it takes to end gerrymandering. To ensure open, accessible and fair elections. To protect the free market-place of ideas. To ensure that citizens choose their elected officials, not the other way around.
Gerrymandering remains one of the gravest threats to our democracy. It has reduced competitive US House districts to nearly ten percent. And, after this redistricting cycle, it could reduce those few remaining swing districts by one-third. A vanishing set of districts where the two parties have any incentive whatsoever to recruit moderate candidates or help incumbents to justify their reelection.
Democracy requires voter turnout and election integrity, but it can no longer co-exist with gerrymandering. Left unchecked, gerrymandering will only yield more damage to our politics. Distorted districts. Rigged elections. Partisanship. Polarization. Alienation. A vicious cycle of eroding competition and escalating extremism. Predictable paralysis and staggering democracy.
Eliminating gerrymandering will not drain partisanship from our electoral processes. Politicians will always try to influence political processes like redistricting. Geography and demographics will continue to affect electoral competitiveness. Still, ending extreme partisan gerrymandering will have its rewards. More diversity, moderation and civility. Higher voter trust and turnout. More competitive elections. A more vibrant democracy. A fighting chance to solve the other problems that face our future.