Gerrymandering and Logical Solutions

By: Michael Crystal

Edited By: Anna Westfall and Kiran Sheth

The Problem:

The ability to express one’s voice through voting is a cornerstone of the United States’ democracy. As such, the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments have granted voting rights to previously disenfranchised groups, such as women and Black Americans. However, there are still ways in which minority groups are having their democratic voices suppressed. One of them is a process called gerrymandering, which came to prevalence following the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Each state has a certain number of congressional districts. In these distinct districts, they elect representatives to send to the House. Both the Democratic and Republican parties want to send as many representatives to the house as they can. Unfortunately, this political desire has led to gerrymandering, a political process of redistricting that manipulates district boundaries to favor a certain party, because politicians have strategically reconstructed congressional districts to maintain their power. Through a process called “packing and cracking,” politicians use their power to retain or gain seats for their party.[1]  “Packing” refers to the act of bunching members of the victim party into the least number of districts possible. In these few districts, they overwhelmingly win the seats. Then, the remainder of the victim party is “cracked,” or split, between other districts in which they do not have enough for the majority. 

North Carolina represents an example of “packing and cracking.” In 2010, the split between congressional delegation was evenly distributed between the Republicans and Democrats. However, in 2011, Republicans took control of the redistricting process for the first time in over 100 years. Their reconstruction of congressional districts led to hyper segregation of Democratic voters, and by 2016, North Carolina Republicans won 10 of 13 districts despite winning only 53% of the statewide vote.[2] The three democratic districts, which were intentionally crafted to remove democratic influence from republican areas, won by over 67% of the vote. By strategically zoning majority democrat areas together, North Carolina Republicans were able to optimize the number of representatives they could send to the house. When asked about the redistricting, Rep. David Lewis (R) said that “electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” and his colleagues and he drew the maps to “help foster what I think is better for the country”.[3] He openly explained that the reorganization of congressional districts served the purpose of gaining political power for his party. 

More recently, Texas’s new districting plans have come under fire and the state is  being sued by the Department of Justice due to their racialized and partisan nature. Between 2010 and 2020, Texas’s population has grown by close to 4 million people, with minorities representing 95% of that increase. Because of this population increase, Texas’s House delegation was expanded from 36 seats to 38. Since the acquisition of these two seats is mostly due to the increase of minority voters, it would make sense to create two congressional zones where their voices can be represented. However, the new congressional maps have created two more predominantly white zones. In their lawsuit, the DOJ alleges that the new maps are unconstitutional on the grounds that they strip voters of color of their democratic voice.[4] 

The Solution(s):

This tactic to gain political power through the strategic creation of congressional districts is a harmful practice that needs to be addressed. This problem may seem like an easy one to address in a non-partisan manner. However, if recent politics have taught us anything, simplicity and non-partisanship are rare occurrences. In Wisconsin, a recent poll indicated 72% of the population strongly supports nonpartisan redistricting. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, through the diminishment and mistreatment of the Voting Rights Act, has made it nearly impossible to challenge acts of gerrymandering. In Texas, although the DOJ has plenty of evidence to suggest that the new congressional maps negatively impact minority communities, it is unlikely that they will receive a favorable ruling. 

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which is a leader in the field of non-partisan zoning, has recognized this failure at the federal level. Now, they are pursuing a “federalist approach,” which keys in on state-by-state changes to halt partisan gerrymandering.  Their approach is mathematical. With the goal of partisan symmetry, they use three statistical methods to determine if certain states have been gerrymandered. The first tests for “an unrepresentative distortion in the number of seats won based on expectations from nationwide district characteristics.” Next, they test for “a discrepancy in winning vote margins between the two parties,” and lastly for “the construction of reliable wins for the party in charge of redistricting”.[5] Through the implementation of these tests, they can construct viable arguments and fight gerrymandering in court. 

Other solutions have been proposed that are designed to completely get rid of the redistricting process of partisanship. Finding an unbiased third party to complete the congressional maps is a solution that some states have already implemented, and others are considering trying.  This is a popular solution, but many opponents say it would be impossible to truly find an unbiased group to complete this task.[6] 

Yet another possible solution is shifting our current voting system to a proportional representation (PR). Currently, our system forces states to divide their population into districts and have each district elect its representative. This allows districts to be gerrymandered and unequally represented. For example, in a state that is 70% Republican and 30% Democrat, the representation in the House from this state should match this split as closely as possible following proportional representation. However, districts are often gerrymandered to gain wins in closely contested races. Then, there are more of these wins for a certain side, resulting in unequal representation. A PR system would ensure that a state with a 70-30 split between the two parties sends a 70-30 split in representatives to the House.[7] However, critics argue that this method would create a large disconnect between representatives, their constituents, and the issues they are supposed to represent.  

Regardless of which solution is chosen, reform to the current system of redistricting must be enacted. Currently, politicians have the ability to choose their voters. To allow democracy to thrive, we need to give our citizens the ability to choose their representatives in a way that accounts for everyone’s voice and opinion. A PR system in particular would add value to votes that are currently undervalued and remove power from overvalued votes. While critics say it creates disconnect, that disconnect already exists. Oftentimes, politicians lobby on issues that are relevant to the community and when they are elected, these issues are moved into their rearview. A PR system would create a more equal system that values collaboration more than partisanship, and that is exactly what our country needs.

NOTES:

1. “Non-Partisan Analysis”, Princeton Gerrymandering Project, March 26, 2022, https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/

2. “Gerrymandering”, Equal Justice Initiative, November 30, 2020,  https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-gerrymandering/

3. “Gerrymandering Deep Dive: North Carolina”, Democracy Docket, September 28, 2021,  https://www.democracydocket.com/news/gerrymandering-deep-dive-north-carolina/

4. “Gerrymandering locked in Republican control for another decade in Wisconsin. The power hungry want even more.”, David D. Haynes, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 10, 2021, https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/12/10/gerrymandering-locked-gop-power-wisconsin-they-want-even-more/6421599001/

5. “The hideous legal obstacles facing DOJ’s new anti-gerrymandering lawsuit in Texas”, Ian Millhiser, Vox, December 7, 2021 https://www.vox.com/2021/12/7/22821274/texas-gerrymandering-justice-department-lawsuit-voting-rights-act-supreme-court-biden

6. “How America lost its commitment to the right to vote”, Ian Millhiser, Vox, July 21, 2021,   https://www.vox.com/22575435/voting-rights-supreme-court-john-roberts-shelby-county-constitution-brnovich-elena-kagan

7. “Three Tests for Practical Evaluation of Partisan Gerrymandering”, Samuel Wang, Stanford Law Review, June 2016, https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/three-tests-for-practical-evaluation-of-partisan-gerrymandering/

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Gerrymandering.” Equal Justice Initiative, 25 Nov. 2020, https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-gerrymandering/. 

“Gerrymandering Deep Dive: North Carolina.” Democracy Docket, 30 Sep. 2021, https://www.democracydocket.com/news/gerrymandering-deep-dive-north-carolina/. 

Haynes, David D. “Gerrymandering Locked in Republican Control for Another Decade in Wisconsin. the Power Hungry Want Even More.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10 Dec. 2021, https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/12/10/gerrymandering-locked-gop-power-wisconsin-they-want-even-more/6421599001/. 

“Info | Princeton Gerrymandering Project.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/. 

Jeff Suzuki. “The Self-Limiting Partisan Gerrymander: An Optimization Approach.” The College Mathematics Journal, vol. 45, no. 5, Mathematical Association of America, 2014, pp. 338–48, https://doi.org/10.4169/college.math.j.45.5.338.

Millhiser, Ian. “How America Lost Its Commitment to the Right to Vote.” Vox, Vox, 21 July 2021, https://www.vox.com/22575435/voting-rights-supreme-court-john-roberts-shelby-county-constitution-brnovich-elena-kagan. 

Millhiser, Ian. “The Hideous Legal Obstacles Facing DOJ's New Anti-Gerrymandering Lawsuit in Texas.” Vox, Vox, 7 Dec. 2021, https://www.vox.com/2021/12/7/22821274/texas-gerrymandering-justice-department-lawsuit-voting-rights-act-supreme-court-biden. 

Sherstyuk, Katerina. “How to Gerrymander: A Formal Analysis.” Public Choice, vol. 95, no. 1/2, Springer, 1998, pp. 27–49, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30024359.

Stewart, A.J., Mosleh, M., Diakonova, M. et al. Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions. Nature 573, 117–121 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1507-6

Vickrey, William. “On the Prevention of Gerrymandering.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 76, no. 1, [Academy of Political Science, Wiley], 1961, pp. 105–10, https://doi.org/10.2307/2145973.

Wang, Samuel. “Three Tests for Practical Evaluation of Partisan Gerrymandering.” Stanford Law Review, June 2016, https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/three-tests-for-practical-evaluation-of-partisan-gerrymandering/.