AP Government and Politics: How Gerrymandering Is A Threat to Democracy

The United States holds a census every 10 years to reapportion the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.  Due to the growing population, some states benefit over others when the population shifts and changes.  The dominant political party of each state chooses where the district lines will be within each state for every election, potentially influencing the election’s outcome.  The ability to determine the district lines to benefit one party over another is referred to as “gerrymandering.”   For example, the Republican party could redraw the districts to deny as many Democratic voters as possible to maintain a conservative seat in the House.  Gerrymandering is a political tactic used in America that reduces competition between candidates within districts, thereby thwarting democracy and increasing polarization.

Gerrymandering has become a pandemic that is spreading across the nation ever since it was first used in 1812 under the administration of Massachusetts governor Eldridge Gerry.  He signed a redistricting bill into law that benefitted his own party.[i]  A drawing was later released showing the district boundary outline in the Boston Gazette.  It was shaped like a salamander, exploiting the manipulation that took place within Massachusetts’s government system.  [ii] This is how the term “gerrymandering” originated, as a merger of Eldridge Gerry’s name and the salamander shape of the district outline.  Following this incident in 1812, Congress enacted the Apportion Act of 1842.  This act required congressional districts to be designed in an adjacent and compact fashion.  It also established rules about creating a district. There would be a ratio between one congressman per 70, 680 residents.   Therefore, this act shrunk the size of the House of Representatives. [iii]Although now amended and redesigned, the bill was significant to the history of gerrymandering because of how it influenced the way states divided territory into congressional districts based on a demographic population.  The United States Constitution gives states the power and authority to redraw district lines in order to maintain equality. Since very few states follow contiguity guidelines regarding redistricting, many of them end up with irregularly shaped districts that may look like Illinois’s “earmuff” congressional district, Maryland’s “praying mantis” congressional district, or Pennsylvania’s “Donald Duck and Goofy” congressional district. [iv] Gerrymandering has been a political strategy used on a regular basis to disadvantage minority political parties.

Gerrymandering uses two methods to draw oddly and irregularly shaped districts every 10 years when districts are redrawn to reflect demographic changes.  The tactics are “cracking” and “packing”, causing Congressional districts to be distorted in a way that benefits one party over another.  “Cracking” severs a group of people into multiple districts to ensure that they do not have a sway with a candidate from a specific party.  It limits the amount of power that their votes could have in an election.[v]  In the past, cracking was used to prevent African Americans from voting for African-American politicians.[vi]  Measures have been taken such as the Voting Rights Act to ensure that racially-minded cracking does not occur.  However, the tactic of “cracking” is still prevalent regardless of whether it is used in a non-racial manner.  “Cracking” plays a role in breaking up communities for partisan gain.[vii]  It also serves a role in disenfranchising voters by causing their votes to be inconsequential, leading people to doubt American’s democratic political system.[viii]  Another method of gerrymandering is “packing,” which is used to place all like-minded individuals into the same district to benefit a political party.  It allows one party to succeed in one district, but it limits their impact in any other district.  “Packing” creates a super-district because all the like-minded voters are concentrated into one district, although they simultaneously lose their impact in the remainder of the districts. [ix]

The methods that manipulate the district lines cause polarization and undermine trust in the government system, resulting in a segregation of voters.  Individuals tend to cluster where like-minded individuals reside because of their similar political opinions.[x]  Professor Seth Masket from the University of Denver explained that gerrymandering does not accurately reflect a representative government.  He says that “Instead of voters picking politicians, the politicians pick the voters, ensuring their own reelection and making them impervious to retribution by voters for acting in too extreme a fashion.  Indeed, the more unbalanced the district becomes, the smarter it becomes for the incumbent to behave in a very partisan manner.” [xi] Gerrymandering has become a tactic that changes the outcome of elections because of its polarized nature.  It brings out the worst in partisan extremes, causing gridlock. When districts are gerrymandered, the incumbents pack the voters from the opposite party in districts that they will already win, wasting those votes.  Gerrymandering also manipulates congressional districts by creating a disproportionate Congress that divides communities by making it impossible to defeat incumbents of a certain party.  Studies highlight that incumbents spend less than their challengers in their re-election campaigns in gerrymandered districts due to their popularity over the challenger.  Their incumbent status allows for them to have a say in how the districts are drawn.  Gerrymandering seems to “create” the incumbents because their political party controls how the districts are designed.  The incumbents use redistricting to protect their own seats and prevent any chance that a challenger has at gaining a seat.  The incumbent’s chance of re-election increases tremendously because of their political power over how the districts are “cracked” or “packed.” [xii] John Delaney, a Democrat from Maryland, admitted to gerrymandering being a bad thing that has too much influence in the state of Maryland.  The sixth district that he formerly represented was manipulated in a way that made Republicans more competitive.[xiii]  Delaney has a valid point because Maryland has been accused of distorting their congressional districts in ways that judges have declared as illegal.  The fate of gerrymandering in Maryland’s sixth district will be voted on in the Supreme Court.[xiv]  Since Maryland is supposed to be one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation, the results of this case could impact the future of gerrymandering.  Delaney exclaimed, “We shouldn’t do this! You should pick your reps, the reps shouldn’t pick you,” further illuminating the national problem that gerrymandering poses.  This political tactic has become very common, affecting elections on local, regional, and national levels.  He believes that gerrymandering has “broken our democracy.”[xv] He also warned, “representative democracy is in crisis in the U.S… Our electoral process has created perverse incentives that have warped our democracy and empowered special interests and a vocal minority.”[xvi]  In the case of Maryland, gerrymandering has made it more difficult for politicians to lose their seats in the House, and it tends to perpetuate those seats staying within one party.

Gerrymandering has made it a challenge to remove incumbents from office because of the control that they have over their districts.  The majority party, especially incumbents, frequently use gerrymandering as a strategy to prevent the minority party from gaining a seat in office.  The political polarization from gerrymandering threatens the core principles of Congress, which is trying to pass legislation in an effective manner.  By favoring incumbents over long periods of time, gerrymandering creates a gridlock that prevents Congress from acting on significant issues like the economy or equality. [xvii]  That being said, gerrymandering is not the sole cause of today’s familiar political polarization.  There are other factors which have divided the country into two opposing sides, including primaries and caucuses.  This is because moderates generally do not attend either of these, so the people in attendance are quite extreme in their views. Therefore, the people who end up voting have extremist views, influencing the outcome of the election in a divisive manner.  But gerrymandering is the most egregious method that creates a polarized and separated system because it gives the legislators too much authority and control over their voters. [xviii]  Some Americans often feel that they are not being appropriately represented. This perception hurts the functioning of the government because it leads to a lack of trust.  The doubt and distrust of the government stimulated by political gerrymandering helps explain the declining rate of voter turnout in this country.   Gerrymandering plays a significant role in obliterating any competition between political parties and reduces the incentive to vote.[xix]  The low voter turnout could also mean that the people who do vote are people who tend to fall in the elite category with a higher income.  The elections that these voters participate in tilt the results in a way that favors businesses and organizations with money and power.  These companies target specific voters and back the incumbents through the disguise of advocacy groups that use unlimited funds.  Since the wealthy have a pull over who wins elections, this leads to an “elite polarization.”  The government experiences a gridlock that cannot execute legislation in the way that the people want.  This aspect of gerrymandering is evident when districts are made up of similar-minded individuals.  Those incumbents do not need to adjust their positions to win over the voters as they are already supported by the homogeneous majority. [xx]  If the incumbents are running for re-election and their district is being gerrymandered, the incumbent consider the issues that best represent the “majority” of the voters from that district. It is unlikely for incumbents to formulate a plan that reflects positions from the other party. Therefore, incumbents vote in a block formation that ensures that the opposing party will not win and that their political party will prevail. [xxi]  Studies completed by political science professors from Northwestern University and Princeton University highlighted that the citizens interested in money-related policies that accumulate authority and control is the type of legislation that prevails in Congress.  These money-focused interests are seen to be very divergent from the opinions of a middle-income or lower-income American citizen.  When these preferences differ, research by these professors indicate that the more elite and pro-business interests are those that win by an astounding number. [xxii] An example where gerrymandered districts ensured this cycle was Project Red Map, a conservative plan that redrew House districts nationwide for $30 million in state elections. This project benefitted pro-business constituents. Project Red Map also benefitted the Koch Brothers, showing why gerrymandered districts are manipulative to the outcome of elections because of its role in being advantageous for finance-driven corporations. [xxiii]

As gerrymandering has become more of an issue, the United States could attempt reforming the system to reduce the political polarization and fractionalization of democracy. Some states are in favor of using independent committees with no partisan bias to design the congressional districts.[xxiv] This approach eliminates “packing” or “cracking”, resulting in an equal district being created. This approach restricts minority groups from benefitting from a gerrymandered district and ensures a fairer election. At this stage, it is difficult to determine what reform method would work best. Grassroot groups have been advocating against gerrymandering, and they have started to form initiatives that could reduce the impact of gerrymandering within states. Michigan, for example, adopted legislation that established a redistricting commission formed of independents to draw the state’s districts. This initiative was passed in November of 2018. [xxv]  Utah will be implementing an initiative soon that will be led by a bipartisan group. This proposal is called “Utahns for Responsive Government.” It will create a group of people who are in charge of redistricting Utah. These people in charge of redistricting would be appointed by the governor and other Utah governmental leaders. The district commissioners would have to follow guidelines and criteria to formulate the districts to prevent homogeneous communities being formed or not formed. [xxvi] “Clean Missouri” is an initiative that Missouri is taking on that is similar to Utah’s but it contains less people and does not involve appointments of any kind. This initiative would provide a demographer from the state who is nonpartisan the task of drawing the boundaries within each district. [xxvii] Any action that states take is a step in the right direction because it means that the people living in those states refuse to let themselves be chosen by the candidates, pushing for it to be the other way around. It is important that states take initiative to reduce the influence of gerrymandering, because any initiative can dilute any impact from partisan manipulation to congressional districts.  

Gerrymandering is a divisive political tactic that undermines democracy and results in an unfair playing field.  Ever since it originated in 1812, it has proved to be toxic for America’s political environment.  It illuminates how the votes of American citizens are being corrupted. When the United States became a country, it was founded on a few basic principles.  One of the founding principles involved equal representation.  Due to gerrymandering, the United States struggles to uphold the standards of the Founding Fathers as the country has fallen into a habit of undemocratically electing governmental officials.  The political strategy of gerrymandering makes it more difficult for incumbents to lose their seats, and it results in that seat staying with one party.  It makes voters seem like they have no power, potentially leading to an even lower voter turnout.  Voters want to feel like they have a voice.  If they can pick who they feel will best represent them in office, then it is a fair voting system.  Gerrymandering, however, has led to a system where the politicians are picking the voters, causing it to be an extreme threat to America and its democracy.

 -Stephanie Sandra

[i] Barasch, Emily. “The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/.

[ii] Dews, A Primer on Gerrymandering and Political Polarization, www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/. 

[iii] Barasch, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/.

[iv] Ran, Mark. “Gerrymandering, or How Drawing Irregular Lines Can Impact an Election.” www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2017/06/gerrymandering-or-how-drawing-irregular-lines-can-impact-an-election/

[v] Whitaker, Princeton Gerrymandering Project Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, www.gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/.

[vi] Ran, Mark, www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2017/06/gerrymandering-or-how-drawing-irregular-lines-can-impact-an-election/

[vii] Olga Pierce, Jeff Larson, and Lois Beckett 2011 www.propublica.org/article/redistricting-a-devils-dictionary

[viii] Wofford, The Great Gerrymandering Debate, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/07/the-great-gerrymandering-debate/

[ix] Whitaker, www.gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/.

[x] Dews, www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/. 

[xii] Wofford, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/07/the-great-gerrymandering-debate/

[xiii] Harwood Harwood, Gerrymandering Helped John Delaney Win Office, But He Says It Has “Broken Our Democracy, “CNBC, www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/gerrymandering-helped-john-delaney-win-office-he-says-it-has-broken-our-democracy.html. 

[xiv] Cox, Erin. “Maryland Faces Big Battle Over Partisan Gerrymandering.” The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-faces-big-battle-over-partisan-gerrymandering/2018/11/24/490249f4-ec68-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.02b54dd080bf.

[xv] Harwood, www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/gerrymandering-helped-john-delaney-win-office-he-says-it-has-broken-our-democracy.html. 

[xvi] “Why Gerrymandering Matters.” Harvard University Press Blog, 2018, harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2018/07/why-gerrymandering-matters-allan-lichtman.html.

[xvii] Wofford, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/07/the-great-gerrymandering-debate/

[xviii] Dews, www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/. 

[xix] harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2018/07/why-gerrymandering-matters-allan-lichtman.html.

[xx] Altman, Micah, and Michael McDonald. "Redestricting and Polarization." MIT Informatics. https://informatics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/dept/files/altmanandmcdonaldredistrictingpolarization_revised_1.pdf.

[xxi] Mui, Chunka. "To End Gridlock, Start by Ending Gerrymandering." Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2011/12/09/to-end-gridlock-end-gerrymandering/#2921bfa71792.

[xxii] harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2018/07/why-gerrymandering-matters-allan-lichtman.html.

[xxiii] Wofford, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/07/the-great-gerrymandering-debate/

[xxiv] Mui, Chunka. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2011/12/09/to-end-gridlock-end-gerrymandering/#2921bfa71792

[xxv] Lo, Annie. "Citizen and Legislative Efforts to Reform Redistricting in 2018." https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/current-citizen-efforts-reform-redistricting.

[xxvi] "Ending Gerrymandering." The Economist. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/10/06/ending-gerrymandering.

[xxvii] Lo, https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/current-citizen-efforts-reform-redistricting.

Bibliography

Matthew, Bailey. “Drawing Lines Between Cornfields: Iowa’s Model for Redestricting.” BPR, Brown Political Review, 2018, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2018/11/drawing-lines-cornfields-iowas-model-redestricting/ 

Wofford, Ben. “The Great Gerrymandering Debate.” BPR, Brown Political Review, 2014, www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/07/the-great-gerrymandering-debate/

Ran, Mark. “Gerrymandering, or How Drawing Irregular Lines Can Impact an Election.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 2017, www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/2017/06/gerrymandering-or-how-drawing-irregular-lines-can-impact-an-election/

Dong, Mary, Nicole Comella, Camila Pelsinger, Eleni Papapanou, Matthew Dudak, David Kaufman, Kion You, Lydia Davenport, and Molley Hemenway. “Gerrymandering Archives.” BPR, Brown Political Review. August 29, 2015. https://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/tag/gerrymandering/

Press, Associated. “Analysis: Partisan Gerrymandering Has Benefitted Republicans More Than Democrats.” Business Insider. June 25, 2017. https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefitted-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6.

Dews, Fred, “A Primer on Gerrymandering and Political Polarization.” Brookings.edu, The Brookings Institution, 5 Mar. 2018, www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/. 

Whitaker, Rob. “Princeton Gerrymandering Project.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, www.gerrymander.princeton.edu/info/. 

Harwood, John. “Gerrymandering Helped John Delaney Win Office, but He Says It Has 'Broken Our Democracy'.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 Dec. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/gerrymandering-helped-john-delaney-win-office-he-says-it-has-broken-our-democracy.html.

Cox, Erin. “Maryland Faces Big Battle Over Partisan Gerrymandering.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Nov. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-faces-big-battle-over-partisan-gerrymandering/2018/11/24/490249f4-ec68-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html?utm_term=.02b54dd080bf.

Barasch, Emily. “The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 20 Sept. 2012, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/.

“Why Gerrymandering Matters.” Harvard University Press Blog, 2018, harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2018/07/why-gerrymandering-matters-allan-lichtman.html. 

Altman, Micah, and Michael McDonald. "Redistricting and Polarization." MIT Informatics. 2015.https://informatics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/dept/files/altmanandmcdonaldredistrictingpolarization_revised_1.pdf.

Mui, Chunka. "To End Gridlock, Start by Ending Gerrymandering." Forbes. December 13, 2011. Accessed January 24, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2011/12/09/to-end-gridlock-end-gerrymandering/#2921bfa71792.

Lo, Annie. "Citizen and Legislative Efforts to Reform Redistricting in 2018." Improving Judicial Diversity | Brennan Center for Justice. November 07, 2018. Accessed January 24, 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/current-citizen-efforts-reform-redistricting.

"Ending Gerrymandering." The Economist. October 06, 2018. Accessed January 24, 2019. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/10/06/ending-gerrymandering.

 -Stephanie Sandra