To understand the debate over gerrymandering, you have to understand what is at the core of the issue. It may be a problem that has no solution.
Every ten years – based on the results of the National Census – each state is obligated to redistrict congressional districts to account for gains or losses in seats based on changes in the population. States have the right to establish the process by which those new maps are drawn. Some leave it to the legislature. Others may establish so-called bipartisan or nonpartisan commissions – although there is never a truly bipartisan or nonpartisan appointed government body. One party or the other has the major power. But it is the state legislatures that ultimately have the final decision on which of a variety of maps is selected. They often override the commissions.
The federal government only has two interests in the activity of the states. Legislatures may not draw maps that are prejudicial to any specific interest group. In other words, maps cannot be drawn to take away anyone’s constitutional rights. The federal government does, however, have greater potential power over the redistricting for federal offices – essentially congressional seats.
The Constitution and case law also directs that all districts should be “contiguous and compact” – meaning that they cannot have unconnected “islands” and they cannot meander over geography to the point where a district looks like a … salamander. Ergo the term “gerrymander” (properly pronounced with a hard “g”).
The “gerry” comes from one of America’s Founding Fathers and Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry. Yes, the issue is as old as the Republic.
The word did not arise out of congressional redistricting. In 1812, the Boston Gazette coined the word gerrymander in opposition to Governor Gerry’s highly partisan state senate map. Accompanying the article is the now famous drawing of that senate district in Essex County — depicted more like a dragon than a salamander, but the popular term took hold.
The unending tradition in American politics is that the party that controlled the state legislatures drew the maps – and they were always to the advantage of the party in power. Well duh! It was – and is — one of those “elections have consequences” realities. In fact, there is no way to legislatively eliminate the partisan advantage. It is part of the American political DNA.
Despite the complaint of the Boston Gazette and the “contiguous and compact” directive of the Constitution, maps of all shapes have been created to give the party in power the advantage. And upon every decennial anniversary, the controversy rages between those empowered to draw the maps and those who are not – usually they battle on a party-line basis. The party out of power often hides behind concocted so-called “good citizen groups.” Almost always, the party out of power loses.
And so it is again this year.
Washington Democrats – and those on the left – are trying to take away the rights of states to create their own maps – much in keeping with the left’s unrelenting efforts to take away the constitutional rights of the several states on almost any issue. Their efforts are always to impose federal authority and, at the same time, shift more and more power to unelected entrenched bureaucrats.
What makes these national efforts to control local redistricting onerous is that the conflicts arise when the party controlling Washington is different than the party controlling the state. If state redistricting is tainted by partisan politics, at least it is in the hands of the party to which the voters of the state gave the power. With today as the example, the Washington Democrats want to nullify the legislative activities of the state-level Republicans put in office by the people.
If you look at redistricting state-by-state, you will see that Republican state legislatures are drawing maps beneficial to Republican candidates. Democrat state legislatures are drawing maps beneficial to Democrat candidates.
What is disturbing about this season is that the highly partisan pro-Democrat major media is on a full-scale attack on only the Republican states. Virtually every criticism that they level at a Republican-dominated state can be equally leveled at Democrat-dominated states.
They put up on the screen some strangely shaped districts in Republican states, but ignore those equally or even more outrageous maps found in Democrat states – such as the “headphones” district in Illinois.
Republicans have a current advantage across the nation because a large number of people have moved from blue states to red states. That means that Republican states will automatically have more members in the 118th Congress. And with control of the mapping, that number could grow exponentially.
It was recently reported that Republican apostate Congressman Adam Kinzinger was redistricted out of his seat in Illinois. But this was not at the hands of Republicans. It was done by the very dominant Illinois Democrat legislature in an attempt to maintain the same number of Democrat congressmen despite the fact that Illinois is losing seats based on population exodus.
We know that redistricting is influenced by partisan politics – and has been since the nation’s founding. We know that the Supreme Court has been rather accommodating in terms of districts that do not seem to meet the “compact” requirement.
So, what can or should be done about the situation. Nothing. Redistricting is best left up to the states –and to the folks that the voters elected to the state legislatures. And despite all the partisan – and I dare say hypocritical caterwauling – there is nothing that can be done, anyway. Both political parties have a vested interest in maintaining the current system. First, because it is anti-democratic to take away the powers of legislators and the politicians that the people put into office. Second, the parties want to have the benefit of redistricting if and when they assume power in the future.
Much in the manner of the periodic locusts, this issue rises and falls every ten years. It causes a lot of commotion at the time — but not forever. Very shortly, the gerrymanders will soon return to their decennial hibernation.
So, there’ tis.