Why Does Gerry Love to Mander?

Gerrymandering is like playing Tetris with voting districts. It's when politicians manipulate the boundaries of electoral districts to favor one party over another. By strategically drawing the lines, they can concentrate their supporters in certain districts or spread out the opposition, ensuring they have a better chance of winning more seats. Gerrymandered districts are often drawn with no practical borders in mind, creating strange and seemingly nonsensical shapes. It's a political strategy that can have a big impact on election outcomes, but it's also controversial because it can undermine the principle of fair representation.

There are several types of gerrymandering. The first is racial gerrymandering. This form of gerrymandering involves manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to disadvantage or advantage a particular racial or ethnic group. This can be achieved by concentrating or diluting the voting power of a specific racial group. For example, if district boundaries are drawn in a way that packs a large number of voters from a certain racial or ethnic community into one district, it might limit their overall political influence. On the other hand, if the boundaries are drawn to dilute the voting strength of a particular racial group across multiple districts, it can also undermine fair representation.

The second is partisan gerrymandering. The goal here is to maximize the number of seats a political party can win in an election. The practice of partisan gerrymandering is controversial because it can lead to distorted election outcomes that don't accurately reflect the overall preferences of the voters. It allows the party in power to consolidate its influence and maintain a stronghold, even if it doesn't have the majority of the popular vote.

Gerrymandering is done through several strategic techniques, but the two most common are cracking and packing.

Cracking involves spreading out voters of a particular political party or demographic group across multiple districts. The goal is to dilute the voting power of that group, preventing them from forming a majority in any single district.

Packing concentrates voters of a specific political party or demographic group into a smaller number of districts. The aim is to create districts where the targeted group has an overwhelming majority. While this strategy ensures the targeted group wins in the packed districts, it limits their overall impact on the political landscape because their influence is confined to a few areas.

So how did this clearly unfair way to drawing districts come to be such a large part of the American political system?

Gerrymandering began almost immediately after English colonists settled on the New Continent. Imported from England's "rotten borough" system, where only a hand full of citizens could vote so politicians could buy and control those votes, gerrymandering was cemented in the new colonies. However, the most publicized case that would come to give give us the term "gerrymander" happened in 1812.

Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, a Jeffersonian Republican, signed off on redistricting that included a ridiculous, contorted district to gain more seats. It looked - you guessed it - like a salamander. After the redistricting the Jeffersonian Republicans received 49% of the vote but held 29/40 state Senate seats.

While the next year Massachusetts's gerrymandered districts were redrawn, drawing districts for political gain continued. After the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution and Black men had the right to vote, gerrymandering ramped up. The Democratic party (supported mostly by white men) redrew districts to suppress the Republican party, which most Black men supported. As more and more racist policies were put into place to quell the Black vote gerrymandering subsided.

After decades of minimal gerrymandering, the 1960s ushered in the "Redistricting Revolution". Activists and lawmakers pushed for more transparent and equitable redistricting processes to prevent partisan manipulation. During the 1960s, several landmark Supreme Court cases played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of gerrymandering and redistricting practices. One such case was Baker v. Carr (1962), which established the principle of "one person, one vote." This decision mandated that legislative districts should be roughly equal in population, aiming to ensure equal representation for all citizens. Another crucial case was Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which further reinforced the one person, one vote principle and emphasized the importance of fair representation.

The Supreme Court's engagement with redistricting issues continued with Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), which addressed the need for congressional districts to be as equal in population as possible. These rulings marked a turning point, laying the foundation for challenges against gerrymandering based on claims of unfair representation. The judicial decisions during this period contributed significantly to the Redistricting Revolution, inspiring reforms and pushing for more transparent and equitable electoral practices across the nation.

However, those equitable electoral practices have not had a lasting effect. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that questions on partisan policies are "nonjusticiable", meaning that the courts cannot resolve those cases. Essentially, the majority opinion ruled that it is not up to the Supreme Court to decide if gerrymandering is too out of control. However, the ruling in Allen v. Milligan (2023) stated that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act by redrawing their districts to exclude a Black district.

Despite that ruling it appears the Supreme Court will leave the practice of gerrymandering and its legality largely in the hands of the states. If a political party has power due to gerrymandering, there is no incentive to make it illegal. Until politicians are voted in to power who enact policies against gerrymandering or the Federal Legislative branch passes a law to prohibit the practice, advocates must continue to fight to end redrawing such maps.