In the United States, representatives to state assemblies and the U.S. House of Representatives are determined by the voters within voting districts in each state. Unlike the boundaries between individual U.S. states, voting district boundaries are redrawn every 10 years to coincide with the U.S. Census. All districts within the state must have populations that are roughly equal to one another. Every time the districts are redrawn, gerrymandering becomes a popular topic in the media. But what is gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, is the drawing of the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals. In other words, gerrymandering can be used by office holders of the party in power to either spread voters from the opposing party across districts or to give a competitive edge to their own candidates. Alternatively, voters from the opposing party can be packed into a minority of voting districts to reduce the number of seats the opposing party can control. Gerrymandering has been condemned because it violates two basic tenets of electoral apportionment—compactness and equality of size of constituencies. The term is derived from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans.
Many of the seats won at the national and state levels during the 2016 election were the result of at least some level of gerrymandering by both Democrats and Republicans. The most famous example concerns two districts in North Carolina (District 1 and District 12) which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled were unconstitutionally drawn along racial lines to increase the populations of African American majorities, effectively packing these voters into fewer districts. Another example involved a case in which a U.S. District Court determined that a map showing the state assembly voting districts of Wisconsin was unconstitutional because it was clearly drawn to benefit Republican candidates.
Several solutions have been devised to reduce the influence of gerrymandering. At a town hall meeting in Plymouth, Michigan, in March 2017, it was suggested that state officials should build replicas of voting districts with LEGO bricks to address the issue of compactness. If these constructions fell apart when they were held up for view, one could argue that the district’s gerrymandering was too extreme. In addition, compactness could be examined using mathematics and spatial analysis to determine the average distances between points of interest, such as urban centers or between the centers of voting districts and their edges. Another radical approach to solving the gerrymandering problem involves the concept of proportional allotment, where each congressional district would elect three to five representatives instead of one. This solution could represent a majority party’s win while preventing a winner-take-all situation, but it would also mean newer and bigger statehouses (and a larger U.S. Capitol building!) to handle the extra seating. Of the more practical solutions, one that shows promise involves shifting the responsibility of redrawing boundaries to independent commissions. Arizona, California, and Idaho already rely on independent commissions to produce voting district maps that are both just and fair.