Way in back in grade school I recall getting an assignment to write a report on Elbridge Gerry, one of the lesser known Founding Fathers of the United States. I cracked open the World Book Encyclopedia and began taking notes about Gerry's experience as the 5th Vice President, and how he was one of three men who refused to sign the Constitution unless it had a Bill of Rights. But I paused at the next highlight in Gerry's life: Gerrymandering. As a typical boy with an interest in monsters and science fiction, the figure above obviously drew me in.
This classic depiction of Gerrymandering is shaped the way it is because the process itself has monstrous effects on our government. Gerrymandering is the act of reshaping electoral districts in such a way that voting groups are either concentrated or dispersed, depending on which party is in power and building the new districts. It often leads to districts that have little in common (e.g. different counties, issues and needs), and leads to more unchallenged elections for incumbents.
Last week the Supreme Court disappointed many voters by declining to overturn Republican Tom Delay's work to reset the Texas district map. Delay was innovative in his push to redistrict in between the U.S. Census counts every ten years, which had become the common practice throughout the country. I believe the Supreme Court made a wise decision based on the law, and said that there are no limits to how often redistricting occurs (just at least once every 10 years). However the result could be chaos.
The main problem with any gerrymandering is that it reduces competitive elections. Here's the number of races in the House of Representatives that were won by fewer than 10 percentage points (a good measure of a close race), according to the Center for Voting and Democracy:
- 1994: 87
- 1998: 43
- 2002: 38
- 2004: 23
And by now readers of this blog can recite, all together now, "challenge leads to improvement." Alternatively, lack of challenge will lead to politicians who make bad laws, favor personal interests, and sell their votes to special interests.
The problem is literally as old as our nation, and if even the Founding Fathers couldn't solve it perhaps we should stop trying. But some states are still working to crack the code. According to USA Today:
"In 1980, Iowa turned over remapping to technocrats operating under orders to draw compact and contiguous districts. In Arizona, a 2000 voter initiative handed redistricting to a commission, giving it explicit instructions to draw competitive districts. In Congress, two bills mandating reforms in every state have garnered 64 sponsors."
Predictably, however, incumbents are fighting back wherever states propose such measures. And I also predict that this Supreme Court decision will unleash a flood of redistricting efforts across the country. Any party with political power would be "foolish" to give up the opportunity to further lock in its grasp, right?
In a way, I actually hope that politicians do begin grabbing the redistricting opportunity. While we will feel temporary pain, this should finally lead to mass frustration among voters and lead to national reform similar to that in Iowa and Arizona. Politicians' blatant grab for power just might be the challenge that finally pushes us voters to improve.
Comments