Gerrymander 'reformers' presume voters are mindless zombies incapable of free will
By Gary Abernathy
Politically, it’s smart to take full advantage of map drawing
The redistricting drama going on in Texas and a growing number of other states lays bare a fact that has been true in politics for decades — legislative map drawing is a partisan practice, and smart politicians take full advantage of it.
It’s amusing that the blue states to where Texas Democrats have fled are among the worst offenders in drawing highly gerrymandered congressional maps. When some Democratic governors threaten to redraw their own maps to create more Democrat districts in order to counter whatever Texas Republicans might do, it’s difficult to see how that’s possible, since the Democrats have already gerrymandered their states to what appears to be the fullest extent possible.
Redistricting usually happens after the latest 10-year census at the start of a new decade. But the decision in Texas to try to redraw them again — at President Trump’s urging — has ignited a firestorm. In recent years, control of the House of Representatives has been so narrow that every seat counts more than ever. But it’s interesting that despite runaway gerrymandering — as defined by critics, anyway — the makeup of the House is still as razor-tight as the nationwide vote cast in presidential elections.
Which leads us to ruminate on that loaded word — gerrymander. The term is generally defined as a process designed to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to achieve preordained partisan election outcomes. In reality, “gerrymander” should be described as “drawing legislative maps” — nothing more, nothing less — because they are always gerrymandered one way or another. And a large number of the current 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives already come from gerrymandered districts.
The question should not center on whether districts are being gerrymandered, since they almost always are, but on which party or constituency is getting helped or hurt the most. By the way, in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering complaints, so the issue is fought at the state level.
In recent years, there have been all sorts of novel arguments against partisan gerrymandering. They always come from those who are not currently in control of the map drawing. One of the most common arguments is that a state’s congressional delegation should generally align with its voter registration breakdown, or with how votes were proportionally cast in recent statewide elections, such as for president or governor.
For instance, if a state voted for Donald Trump by a 60 percent to 40 percent margin, “reformers” will argue that the state’s congressional delegation should roughly reflect that outcome. So if that state has 10 congressional seats, they should ideally be comprised of 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Likewise, if a state voted 70-30 for Kamala Harris — again using 10 seats as an example — it should ideally have 7 Democrats and 3 Republicans in its congressional delegation. (Trump appears to be using a form of this argument to justify redrawing Texas to create more GOP-friendly districts.*)
Many of those* using such logic often argue that “nonpartisan” commissions should be created in each state to draw the maps, and they should be drawn to achieve outcomes that reflect statewide voter sentiment or registration — which would just be another form of gerrymandering, since gerrymandering is the drawing of maps to achieve a particular partisan election outcome.
It’s actually an insult to voters to presume that their votes are so easily predicted. It begs the question of why we even bother to hold elections in the first place, if the results are so easily manipulated in advance. It presumes that voters are so loyal to their parties that there is no possibility of them voting in large numbers for a member of the other party. That’s the presumption of those doing the gerrymandering, and those who consider themselves reformers. They all treat voters like mindless zombies with no will of their own.
That’s the big hole in the argument that gerrymandering violates the principle of one person, one vote, and of fair and equal representation. It arrogantly presumes that people are incapable of changing their minds or their politics, or being persuaded by campaigns, or that living in a certain geographic locale guarantees a certain way of voting. It presumes a preordained outcome that treats voters as little more than lemmings marching mindlessly to the sea (another myth, by the way).
Those who engage in gerrymandering seek to group certain towns, counties and regions together in ways designed to achieve certain outcomes. Likewise, those who insist on the “nonpartisan” — I put those words in quotation marks because there is no such thing — drawing of districts also want maps drawn to group certain towns, counties and regions together in ways designed to achieve certain outcomes.
The only difference is the nature of the outcomes the two sides want to reach. The manipulation is the same, as is the partisanship — by its very nature, drawing “fair” maps (in the eyes of the beholder) that remove “safe” seats from either party has achieved the partisan result of hurting the party that would presumably lose seats and helping the party that would presumably gain them.
(Ohio is redrawing its maps again this year because of a convoluted law requiring it to happen (explained here), and it will be another partisan battle.)
In reality, there should be no assumption that a seat is “safe.” The very notion implies that voters are locked in, no matter what. It’s an insult to voters and to candidates, since there’s an assumption that no candidate can be attractive enough to woo voters his or her direction if they’re part of the “wrong” party.
History is filled with upsets that occurred in supposedly “safe” seats. The 1994 “Republican revolution” involved the GOP picking up 54 seats in the House, with numerous Republicans winning seats considered “safe” for Democrats — including at least one seat which had never previously sent a Republican to the House. It was the first time in 40 years that the GOP controlled both houses of Congress — and they did it by overcoming gerrymandering by Democrats. In each decade of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, Democrats controlled redistricting in many more states than Republicans (some states had split control) — but the GOP eventually overcame the disadvantage to win.
Several states — probably 15-20 — have adopted a hodgepodge of so-called “nonpartisan” or “bipartisan” legislative map drawing commissions. The exact number of states doing so is difficult to define, since in some cases legislative partisans still play a role. (Wikipedia tries to explain it.)
But many states still have map-making processes firmly controlled by one party or the other — and the parties increasingly take advantage of that power. That’s okay. There are many spoils that go to the victors, and controlling legislative boundaries has long been one of them. In some states, winning just a few key offices allows one party to draw the maps, but rather than focus on winning those offices, minority party officials want to sue in court or complain to the media.
Or, in the case of Texas, the Democrats just run away and hide out of state. It’s shameful. And by the way, technically, Texas Democrats did not “break quorum,” as most of them keep insisting (it must be a talking point that tested well in focus groups). A quorum has to be established before it can be broken. By not showing up, Texas Democrats denied establishing a quorum in the first place.
In the long run, the Texas legislative majority will likely get their wish to redraw the map, later if not sooner. Other states led by Democrats will try to counter whatever advantage they think the GOP has gained, if they can find a way to further gerrymander what is already, in most cases, gerrymandered to the max.
Is it fair? No. Do we deserve better? Not necessarily. As Clint Eastwood said in “Unforgiven,” “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
As they say, politics ain’t beanbag.
*Updated 9:20 p.m.
Fortunately, international courts don’t rule in the U.S.
In my new column for The Empowerment Alliance, I discuss the dangers that we would likely be facing if the Biden administration was still in power and giving credence to the rulings of international courts on environmental issues.
Fortunately, as I note, the Trump administration “treats rulings from international courts with the same level of respect paid to ‘Do Not Remove’ tags on couch cushions.”
I write:
President Trump is putting America first and leading an energy renaissance that should be in full bloom on our nation’s 250th birthday on July 4, 2026. It’s difficult to imagine a greater Independence Day gift to the American people than freedom from the cold, dark landscape that would result from following the directives of global agencies and the rulings of international courts.
You can read it in full here.