"Why isn't gerrymandering illegal?"

[kentuck]

My wife asked me that this morning.

I had no answer. Is it something that both Parties agree with?

It does seem to me to be racism in its most basic form. It does segregate the different races for political purposes. They will draw the lines with mostly African-Americans in the district or they will draw the lines with mostly white Republicans in the district. Both seem to be wrong to me.

I don't know why it isn't challenged more? If not illegal, it is wrong and discriminatory, in my opinion.

When we see extreme candidates out of these districts take over our Congress, it has to make you take notice. It is unfortunate that moderates in the Republican Party are so fearful of these extremists in their own Party that they will not challenge them.

Can "gerrymandering" be repealed by Congress??

[onehandle]

1. Congress can address anything with new laws.

Fat chance this will be addressed anytime soon.

[spanone]

2. because those who change those laws are those who stay in office because of them

[fredamae]

3. As I understand it

Re-districting began during the census in order to better address particular needs in particular areas, for particular people based upon population growth and changes. It began with good intent.
Who, When and How this tool became a matter of political manipulation? I cannot tell you.

[SheilaT]

4. The states can draw districts any way they like,

so long as they adhere reasonably close to the one person one vote rule.

The problem is that those drawing the districts know perfectly well where the registered voters for each party reside. Which makes me wonder. I believe there are states out there that don't require voters indicate party affiliation when they register, so I wonder how good they are at gerrymandering. On the other hand, they will know precinct by precinct how voters voted, so it's still a doable thing.

About thirty-five years ago I was taking a college level geography class. One of our assignments was to redraw Congressional Districts in some particular state. I think it was either Oregon or Washington, and I was in school in Virginia, so the assumption was probably that none of us knew too much about the state chosen. I cannot recall if we were given party affiliations, but I do recall how difficult it was to draw the lines to adhere to the one person one vote rule.

There's probably no good reason why someone in some other country who is blessedly ignorant of the partisan politics of this country, couldn't be given the job of writing a computer program that draws the districts. But it will never happen. Some states have turned to more or less bi-partisan or neutral commissions to draw the districts.

[Lifelong Dem]

5. Gerrymandering is the only way the Repubs can win the House

As long as they have gerrymandering to control the House we can't change the law. The turnout needs to be huge to stop their control.

[KansDem]

6. I remember a couple decades ago...

Republicans complained bitterly about gerrymandering by the Democrats. North Carolina's 12th District was used as an example--


Circa: 1990
Source: Wikipedia

I thought they had a point then, but now I see it's okay if it's only the Republicans doing it...

[tabbycat31]

20. I believe the district looks similar today

[MineralMan]

7. The biggest problem is that states are in charge of elections within

their states. Congressional district elections are state elections. So redistricting after each census is done by the individual states, and every state does it in its own way.

In some states, like Minnesota, there are strict rules for redistricting that make it very difficult to do any real gerrymandering. In other states, the state legislature does the redistricting, and then it becomes a political football, with the party that controls the state legislature doing everything it can to gerrymander the districts to benefit that party.

Congress can't do much about redistricting, since there's nothing in the Constitution about it. By federal law, congressional districts must have the same population so they are all roughly the same. But that's it. Beyond that, it's up to each state to figure out, and it's unlikely to change.

The Constitution limits the federal government to just the things specified in the Constitution. That's slipped over the years, but elections are still a matter for state governments. Congress can say when the Presidential elections are held, but that's about it. In the Electoral College, Electors are chosen according to state rules.

[kentuck]

12. Yep.

It is the responsibility of the states to re-draw districts, not the Congress. Does that mean Congress can make no law that pertains to all states in regards to gerrymandering?

The way I see it, the Congress could pass a law but a state could then challenge it to the Supreme Court, where it would most likely meet a quick demise.

[MineralMan]

16. The states are required to make districts equal in population

so that the one person one vote concept is upheld. A few states have had to submit their redistricting plans to the federal government for pre-approval, due to prior issues. I don't remember which states or whether that is still in effect.

In my state of Minnesota, it is the job of the legislature and the Governor, but if the two cannot agree, a committee of the Supreme Court of Minnesota draws the districts. Other states have commissions who draw the boundaries. The federal government is interested in gerrymandering that affects ethnic voter distribution and that can have an impact, but it's a complex thing.

Some states have laws that limit redistricting in some ways. For example, as in Minnesota, districts should include all of a city or town, where possible, for example. It also has restrictions on boundaries that wander too much from the simplest possible design, but those get all muddled in some places, where population densities are low.

A few states have sometimes drawn really contorted Congressional districts, making the district map look like a jigsaw puzzle. It can be really strange, and it does have a strong impact on Congressional representation in some states. It's a weird system, indeed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Because, "They that have the gold make the rules."

[PoliticAverse]

9. The Supreme Court has found that racially based gerrymandering is unconstitutional but that

partisan-based gerrymandering isn't unconstitutional.

[Skidmore]

10. Iowa has a really good way of redistricting that is fair.

I'd like to see it tried in other states.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Redistricting_in_Iowa

[last1standing]

11. How would you make it different?

I agree that the extreme gerrymandering going on is reprehensible but what would be a viable alternative? Stronger enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the practice? New laws? Giving up on representation based on district and moving to a more direct voting system?

Gerrymandering is as old as the US and rarely does even the most outrageous example of it get struck down using current laws. However, if we enact new laws will they be followed any better than the current ones? As for direct voting, that move would have its own issues and questions to deal with. How do we allot representatives in a state if it votes 51% Democrat/49% Republican? Would candidates have to campaign throughout the state? Would citizens vote for a party which then assigned representatives?

And then we have to ask ourselves whether the Senate is yet another example of gerrymandering? Why should 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same power as 38,000,000 in California? Is the average Wyoming resident really worth more than 63 Californians? Does it pass the smell test when a state like Montana with fewer than 5000 African Americans has the same Senatorial representation as New York which has more than 3,000,000?

Perhaps, in an age of instant communication and homogenization, we have outlived the purpose of State Voice. Maybe we need to move toward more direct - and equal - representation.

[kentuck]

13. I think the closest thing to fairness would be to make every district as close as possible to 50/50

Then if one side disagreed with their own Party, they could show it by not voting or if they disagreed with the opposing Party, they could come out in more energetic and larger numbers, and it would not have to be so extreme.

I suppose it would have to be challenged and approved in one state before it could gain precedence.

[last1standing]

22. Techically, that is what they do.

I know they really don't but they say they do and they're rarely overturned.

Also, the problem with this form of division is that it can easily overstate or understate party allegiance based on a single turnout. Let's say in a conservative district in Mississippi the republicans run a very weak candidate while the Democrats run a populist who manages to hit all the right points. If the republican still wins by a 51/49 margin, the republicans in the state house can justify creating a district based on that result. I could also create other scenarios based on nearly any results that would still allow a corrupt majority to bolster its actual results.

The problem with asking the judiciary to look at it is there is no set judicial standard for review and even if there were, it would likely end up being arbitrary or capricious since this is the usual standard for governmental actions. So unless a plaintiff could prove racial discrimination that compromised a minority citizen's right to representation, most courts would side with the state.

[MineralMan]

21. The Senate and House were set up specifically to be that way.

The states insisted that one house, the Senate, be formed giving equal power to each state, regardless of population or geographical size. The House, on the other hand, was designed to represent the people, rather than the state, so each state gets a number of members of the house that represents their relative population.

So, some states have two senators and just one House member. That's the balancing act. On the other hand, a state with a large population will have more House members, in proportion to the population.

That was the balance decided on by those who wrote the Constitution. And it was a hotly disputed thing at the time. The states with low populations insisted on equal representation in the Senate, so that's what we have. The House is the body that represents the population, though. That's why it is charged with creating all funding and budgeting legislation, based on the "no taxation without representation" principle.

Learning about why things work as they do should be part of everyone's education. Maybe it is, but most people seem to have forgotten the information. It's all very fascinating, and sometimes seems archaic, but there are reasons for all of it.

[last1standing]

23. LOL! If you don't think I understand the history/reasoning of our current system, reread my post.

Unless you're a Constitutional lawyer, I very much doubt you have a better understanding of how this nation was set up and the Constitutional rules that govern it than myself.

That said, my comments were directed at the gerrymandering system and how the rules that were set up over two hundred years ago may not be the most useful today. They are certainly not the most representative of the population. Propping up a system that no longer works is not in the best interests of the people or the nation.

The post-Civil War period changed much more about this country than most people realize. States are no longer sovereign over the federal government and the 14th Amendment's incorporation clause gave powers to the people that were once held exclusively to the states. Based on these changes, it can reasonably be argued that the states no longer need, or have a right to, equal voice in national government regardless of their population.

"We've always done it this way," without more, is not a valid argument.

[MineralMan]

24. I don't know what you know.

I posted some information. If you already knew that, good for you. Others might not know the history of it. You're not the only one reading this thread.

[last1standing]

25. Then I apologize but the tone of your post sounded rather condescending to me.

Regardless, the point of my original comment and follow up is that there are other ways, possible better - maybe worse, to engage in representational democracy that could allow the people to have a more equal voice.

[MineralMan]

26. No doubt there are better ways.

Implementing them, though, might require a Constitutional Amendment. I'm all for better ideas, but making them happen is not always possible. Anything that requires an amendment isn't going to happen, I'm afraid.

[last1standing]

28. It would definitely take an admendment and the chances of that are slim to nil.

However, we were talking about how to fix the system with regards to gerrymandering and that is the only way I can see of doing it. In fact, I doubt that even the 'fixes' I've mentioned would work as there were always be someone smarter and greedier and more corrupt waiting to exploit any loopholes.

Our government is only as good as we make it. If we continue to elect politicians who care more about money than society we will continue down the path of inequality and misery - and that statement is just as true of Democrats as republicans.

In other words, the only real 'fix' is an educated populace that is willing to stay engaged in the process. There is no other way.

[CrispyQ]

14. Because people don't pay close enough, or any(!) attention to state & local politics.

I'm guilty too. I think dems are especially bad at this.

[Cleita]

15. Your wife AND me.

I've been asking the same question for decades now. When I was in school, we were taught in our Civics classes that gerrymandering was a corrupt election practice right up there with ballot stuffing. So I think it should be illegal and don't know why it isn't.

[NightWatcher]

17. the same reason that they always vote to give themselves raises

Those in power do it to benefit themselves. Most of the ones doing it now are repukes in repuke controlled states to ensure that only repukes get voted into office.

[on point]

18. Since congressional rep elections are in the constitution congress can regulate

Also for senate and president races and voter I'd.

What we need is a new voter rights act that covers all of the USA, not just the old racist states. The repukes are playing games in lots of places and ways, not always for racism, but always for stealing elections and power.

Congress can and should regulate federal election rules for voters, districting and the like.

Not sure they would have authority to regulate districts and rules for purely state elections.

[beachbum bob]

27. the constitution says very little

On the manner on how states can conduct their elections. It is a states rights issue that must be addressed at the state level.

[gulliver]

19. Lawsuits needed.

If I were a black or Hispanic who lived in a district that was gerrymandered so that I would never be represented, I would start following the money. Does my district get Federal projects or improvements that always seem to end up in the white neighborhoods of the district? If so, time to go to court.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. Partisan vs. Racial Gerrymandering

I have been volunteering on voter protection issues for a very long time. One of the key provisions of the Manchin proposal is the elimination of partisan gerrymandering. I have testified before the Texas state house and Senate committees a while back on the Texas redistricting plans and had fun following the Texas redistricting case. MALDEF used part of my testimony to contest the state house maps in my county which were heavily gerrymandered, but the court was unable to do anything due to the SCOTUS ruing set forth below. I first heard of the efficiency gap theory a while back from a presentation by Chad Dunn (the lawyer who won the Texas voter id/voter suppression case) and this concept is in effect a major part of the Manchin proposal

Racial gerrymandering has been illegal for a while but the SCOTUS has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not covered by the Voting Rights Act https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

The ruling puts the onus on the legislative branch, and on individual states, to police redistricting efforts.

"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

Trump Threatens Census Delay After Supreme Court Leaves Citizenship Question Blocked
Roberts noted that excessive partisanship in the drawing of districts does lead to results that "reasonably seem unjust," but he said that does not mean it is the court's responsibility to find a solution.

Partisan gerrymanding is a method where districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed into districts with large majorities while republican districts are drawn so to maximize the number of seats won by GOP candidates

Republicans managed to both maximize their advantage and minimize Democratic power by drawing district lines to pack as many Democrats as possible into three districts, and then cracking other potentially Democratic districts in half or thirds, diluting the Democratic vote to create safe Republican districts.

The League of Women Voters, one of the challengers in the case, pointed out that the GOP had even split predominantly Democratic Greensboro so that half of the dorms at historically black North Carolina A&T State University were put in one Republican district, and half in another.

You can combat partisan gerrymandering with a concept called the efficiency gap where one attempts to draw districts so that GOP and Democratic voters are in effect spread more equitably. Here is a brief explanation of this concept by the Brennan Center https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/How_the_Efficiency_Gap_Standard_Works.pdf

The efficiency gap is a standard for measuring partisan gerrymandering that is currently at the heart
of the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Whitford v. Nichol.

Developed by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and
Eric McGhee, Research Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, the efficiency gap counts
the number of votes each party wastes in an election to determine whether either party enjoyed a
systematic advantage in turning votes into seats.2 Any vote cast for a losing candidate is considered
wasted, as are all the votes cast for a winning candidate in excess of the number needed to win.

Here is another explanation of this concept https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/03/upshot/how-the-new-math-of-gerrymandering-works-supreme-court.html

The Supreme Court is considering a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin. At the core of the debate is a new way to measure gerrymandering. Here’s the simple math behind it. RELATED ARTICLE

Ever since Justice Anthony M. Kennedy left the door open to a “workable standard” to limit partisan gerrymandering, political scientists have sought to construct a measure to satisfy him. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that will test whether they’ve pulled it off.

At the center of the case is the “efficiency gap,” a relatively new measure of partisan gerrymandering. A federal court in Wisconsin ruled in November that the state’s Republican-controlled legislature had discriminated against Democratic voters, and it partly relied on the efficiency gap to find that the Wisconsin State Assembly map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Whether it’s persuasive to Justice Kennedy — expected to be the key swing vote in the case — is another matter. The efficiency gap is not a perfect measure. But it would probably address many of gerrymandering’s problems, with few downsides.

The Manchin proposal on getting rid of partisan gerrymanding is a major deal. This one proposal would make a major difference in the real world