9.3.11: Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering

Each redistricting cycle, politicians in many locations are accused of purposefully constructing political district boundaries to favor one group (e.g., Democrats, Latinos, labor unions, gun advocates) over another. The construction of unfair districts is called Gerrymandering. The odd term, “Gerrymander” comes from a newspaper story that characterized an unfair redistricting map for South Essex County in Massachusetts in 1812. The map of the redrawn districts strongly favored Massachusetts’ governor at the time, Elbridge Gerry. The shape of one district was so distorted that pundits suggested it looked like a salamander, thus providing the two words that became the halves of the portmanteau used today to describe the process of creating unfair political districts.

There are several different strategies that politicians use to gerrymander districts. When there is little cooperation between political parties (or other interest groups), politicians may pursue strategies that aggressively seek to limit the political influence of opposition groups. Sometimes, when the opposition (or ethnic minority) party is small enough, the controlling group may draw lines through the minority areas, minimizing the opposition’s ability to influence the outcome of elections in as many regions as possible. This process, called cracking, has commonly been used to divide inner-city ethnic minority groups into multiple districts each numerically dominated by whites.

Figure Diagrams of political districts with 64 precincts. The left diagram represents competitively drawn districts. The middle diagram demonstrates the packing technique and the rightmost diagram demonstrates the cracking technique.

If the opposition grows too numerous to split via cracking, then the group controlling the redistricting process may draw district lines so that the opposition is dominant in a few districts, or even a single district, to minimize the overall power of the opposition in the overall system. That strategy is called packing. Even a statistical minority can control power by carefully packing a majority group into cleverly drawn district boundaries. Often packing creates a controversial type of district based on race, known as a minority-majority district. Minority-majority districts ensure at least some political representation by a candidate from an ethnic or racial minority, but they may also dilute the overall power of the same racial or ethnic majority.

There are dozens of other techniques by which one group can control the political power of others through manipulating election boundaries. However, it is likely that the most common type of unfairly drawn electoral district is the so-called sweetheart gerrymander drawn up cooperatively by incumbents from opposing political parties in order to help maintain the status quo. Generally, this involves drawing up safe districts, that clearly favor the re-election of incumbents, ensure the maintenance of the status quo and nearly guaranteeing non-competitive general elections. In safe districts, the primary elections may remain competitive, but the competition is between candidates of the same party.

Gerrymandering has been cited by political observers as one of the most serious problems crippling American politics. Thanks to advanced data collection, management and analysis made possible with GIS, politicians and political interest groups may carefully design districts that strongly favor candidates and/or specific constituencies. Gerrymandered districts greatly diminish the incentive for politicians running for office to appeal to broad constituencies. Because politicians running for office in safe districts rarely need to consider opposing viewpoints, they are free to be extreme in their views and less likely to compromise with politicians from opposing parties.

When political districts are gerrymandered into numerous safe districts, the results of general elections held in November are rarely in doubt. Incumbents with favorably drawn districts know that the only challenge to getting re-elected is likely to come from within their own party during the primary elections. Because voter turnout in primary elections is usually small, and often limited to people with strong or even extreme political opinions, candidates appealing to extreme political viewpoints tend to advance to the general election in the fall more often where a district gerrymandered. When too many extremists get elected from opposing parties, they tend to be unwilling to make political compromises and as a result, few laws or regulations are passed. The recent 113th Congress of the United States (2013-2015) included many congresspersons from gerrymandered districts, and perhaps as a result, it was unproductive in terms of legislative activity. Of course, some would say, “The less they do the better!”, while others would suggest that inaction during a period of a national economic crisis (The Great Recession) was an abdication of duty to the country.

Figure Los Angeles, CA. Multilingual signs at a polling place indicate local commitment to encouraging broad participation in elections.

There are several solutions to gerrymandering. One strategy in some states is to hold open primary elections which allow any person, regardless of their political affiliation or party, to vote for any candidate. Traditionally, primaries are closed, meaning that only voters who are registered as Republican can vote for Republican candidates; registered Democrats can only vote for Democrats, etc. There are some potential benefits and some potential pitfalls (party raiding) with the open primary system, but many think them worth the risk. In 2013, only about 13 states still had fully closed primaries. The remainder of states have adopted some strategy to replace the closed primary system in order to promote greater voter turnout during the primary elections, and more centrist candidates, but if districts are extremely gerrymandered, open primaries have little effect on the competitiveness of races in the fall.

FIGURE: Infographic: The 113th Congress passed only 165 pieces of legislation, a historic low in the post-WWII era. Gerrymandering has created a shortage of competitive congressional districts and this may be a spatial reason for gridlock in Washington. Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/ The 115th (Trump) may be even less productive.

The other strategy to combat gerrymandering adopted by several states, including California, has been to remove the power to draw district boundaries from politicians. In California, an independent citizen’s commission now draws political district boundaries. The idea behind this commission was a conviction by citizens of California that non-politicians would create competitive electoral districts that would combat political extremism. In California, there was stiff opposition from some political groups to the district maps drawn by the commission, but most independent political analysts argue that the new maps are what voters want. In the San Fernando Valley, the district maps drawn by the new commission forced two long-serving incumbent Democrats (both white and Jewish) to face off against one another. The beneficiary of the redistricting may have been Latino voters, who though numerically dominant in the eastern San Fernando Valley, were not represented by a Latino representative in Washington DC until after 2010 when Tony Cardenas won the office.

One of the great challenges facing even the most impartial of mapmakers charged with drawing district boundaries is the difficulty in ensuring that a group with similar political interests or needs is represented without simply drawing a district around them (packing), or splitting them across multiple districts (cracking). Called a community of interest by judges who have ruled in court cases on gerrymandering, they have been found worthy of consideration for exemptions to the normal prohibitions that prevent gerrymandering for political parties. However, the definition of exactly what constitutes a community of interest is vague enough that almost any group with something in common could claim to be a “community of interest”. The fact that many communities of interest (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.) often align neatly with political affiliation also complicates efforts to prevent partisan gerrymandering.

Take for example residents who live along California’s central coast. The beach communities that stretch from Oxnard to San Luis Obispo share concerns about issues like tourism, viticulture, oceanic pollution, beach erosion, etc. These common concerns would seem to qualify the people as a “community of interest.” Those communities also happen to be liberal and solidly Democratic. So when the 23rd congressional district was drawn after the 2000 Census, it included only a narrow stretch of beach communities from Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. The inland reaches of those counties were split between Districts 24 and 22 (both Republican in 2010). The peculiar shape of District 23 prompted some political observers to label this district the “Ribbon of Shame”. It certainly created a safe district for Democratic congressional representative Lois Capps, but the 23rd district also seemed to be a logical way to ensure that beach cities along the central coast were cohesively represented in Washington DC. One could also argue that Democrats were losers in a packing scheme, hatched by Republicans, because Democrat voters were concentrated into this single district, thereby allowing Republicans to easily win elections in two neighboring congressional districts. Examine the evidence for yourself, analyze the situation and speculate who benefitted from the map of District 23. The district looks much different after the 2010 redistricting maps were drawn.

Figure A map found on a partisan website denouncing what appears to be blatant gerrymandering in California.