Checkpoint: Independent Commissions Are Necessary To Oppose Gerrymandering
Gerville
It has been said that political eras shift in decades. The results of the 2022 US redistricting cycle will drastically influence the political landscape through this era and frame the next decade of foreign and domestic policy. Voter line manipulation and gerrymandering tactics have been comprehensively utilized by both Democrats and Republicans for political advantage, and such attempts have prompted multiple states to re-issue their voting map proposals. Partisan manipulation and suppressive measures are empowered by the 2013 Supreme Court decision against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The partisan interference throughout numerous redistricting processes calls into question the systems by which maps are drawn and the bodies responsible. Many states utilize a highly partisan process to create redistricting maps, prompting others, such as Arizona, to employ independent redistricting commissions. Such commissions, characterized by non-partisan autonomy, are necessary to ensure that political representation is fairly distributed through the decade in a way that accurately reflects the population.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering derives its name from the 1812 proposal of a highly partisan electoral district by Elbridge Gerry, former Governor of Massachusetts and later Vice President. Redistricting occurs every decade to reflect population changes in census data and proportionately distribute political representation and resources; for two centuries, however, partisan and racial interests wielded the process to their advantage. Gerrymandering techniques include “cracking”, the splitting of a community between districts to reduce its influence, and “packing”, the compacting of a community into a single district to limit its sway to a single representative. “Hijacking” is a technique that redraws two incumbent candidates into a singular district, forcing only one into re-election, while “kidnapping” refers to the placement of an incumbent’s local residence in a separate district than that of their base and allies. Techniques such as these have allowed Democrats and Republicans alike to unethically mold the political landscape to their partisan desires and capitalize on advantages where available.
Shelby County v. Holder
The 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder to nullify key components of the Voting Rights Act muddied perceptions of an objective court and called judicial biases into question. Where Section 4 of the act provided a framework for identifying areas with noted histories of racial discrimination, Section 5 subsequently established and compelled the obtainment of “preclearance” from a three-judge court in Washington DC or the US Attorney General for any proposed changes to voting laws. However, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the ruling that the Section 4(b) coverage formula identified localities based on outdated data no longer responsive to the current condition of the government- thus undermining Section 5 and permitting those states to construct voting districts as they see fit. 2022 will be the first redistricting cycle since the erosion of the VRA. The implications of the decision will extend beyond moral debates into the next ten years of legislative and congressional status quo.
Texas’s proposed redistricting map was met with strong resistance and criticism, receiving an “F” grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Nevertheless, anticipated voter suppression efforts have long since materialized on Texas district maps. The current second district, led by Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, is an example of the convoluted district constructions implemented to secure political advantage. As with many states suspected of partisan gerrymandering, redistricting in Texas is managed by the legislature. It is for this reason that the organization of these maps must be managed by non-partisan interests; exclusionary and discriminatory gerrymandering undermines the rightful political representation due to the people and serves unethical partisan interests, drastically skewing the political landscape and influence for years thereafter.
Redistricting Methods
Thirty-four state legislatures retain control of their own district lines while thirty-nine states retain control over their own congressional lines. Voting line proposals are generally submitted with similar procedures to routine legislation, often presenting the opportunity for gubernatorial or supermajority vetoes. Iowa, Maine, Utah, and Vermont, however, appoint advisory commissions with non-legislators often invited to advise on the proposed redistricting lines, though the legislature retains final approval power. Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas utilize backup commissions, each state with unique procedures in place should the legislature fail to pass a plan. Similarly, Arkansas, Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia utilize “politician commissions,” comprised of elected officials. It is easy to see how such systems of redistricting oblige states to manipulate their respective voting maps to serve party interests. It is for this reason that partisan political interests must be totally excluded from redistricting to ensure that maps are drawn to reflect true population change, as opposed to special interests.
Independent Voting Commissions
The process of redistricting is to ensure that members of the population are receiving political representation proportional to their numbers. It is unethical that a process inherently meant to accurately distribute representation to the people is manipulated by interest to serve partisan political goals. It is for this reason that Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Washington all delegate their state and federal redistricting to independent regulated commissions. Employing neither legislators nor public officials, some go as far as to bar legislative staff and lobbyists from serving on commissions. Arizona’s independent commission has shown promising results as to the efficacy of reducing gerrymandering. The state received a “B” grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, with only a slight Republican advantage, and significantly tighter requirements for the construction of its maps.
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project notes Arizona’s redistricting requirements that,
“In addition to the federal requirements of one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act, Arizona’s state constitution (Art. IV Pt. 2 § 1.14-15) requires that districts be compact, contiguous, preserve communities of interest, respect geographic features and pre-existing political boundaries, and favor competitive districts. There is no protection for incumbent candidates. Party affiliation and voting history cannot be considered in creating maps, but may be used to test them.”
These requirements are implemented to ensure that partisan and racial interests are minimized in the outlining of state and federal lines. These requirements starkly contrast states with legislature-based redistricting. Texas, for example, simply states that,
“In addition to the federal requirements of one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act, Texas’s state constitution (Art. III §§ 25, 26) requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and preserve whole counties. There are no state law requirements for drawing congressional districts.”
It is important to note that independent commissions are not the sole and final solution to partisan interference in redistricting processes. Arizona Republicans accused their commission of violating open meeting laws, procurement laws, and state standards in how the lines were drawn. Further, Colleen Mathis was impeached after Republicans learned of her husband’s involvement in a 2010 Democratic legislative campaign, though she was later reinstated by the Supreme Court. Redistricting independence from legislators does not secure independence from obstructive partisanship in the affairs of those bodies, but the efficacy of the commissions have shown positive results nonetheless at constructing relatively fair lines that match population growth.
Conclusion
Independent redistricting commissions are vital to properly allocating communities with the representation they are due. The Supreme Court’s undermining of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby v. Holder foreshadowed the evidence of gerrymandering already seen in certain proposed voting lines. Last-minute negotiations for a redraw of Texas’s proposed maps are underway due to a failure to properly represent Texans of color- accounting for 95% of the state’s population growth over the last ten years, while Hispanic Texans nearly make up the state’s largest demographic group. Gerrymandering in any form is unethical whether performed by discriminatory interests or in efforts to gain a political advantage over those interests. An effort must be made to excise partisan and racial interests from the creation of voting districts so that the country may properly and accurately adhere to the will of the people. The establishment of independent non-partisan redistricting commissions is the most efficient means of ensuring that political representation is fairly and equitably distributed through the coming decade.