District Boundaries: A Panel Discussion
District boundaries are a critical element of the United States electoral system. They determine who votes for whom and can have significant implications for how representation is allocated in Congress, state legislatures, and local government bodies. However, district boundaries are also subject to manipulation by politicians seeking to gain partisan advantage or protect their incumbency.
To explore this issue further, we convened a panel of experts on redistricting and voting rights. The panelists were:
– Emily Bazelon, staff writer at The New York Times Magazine and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration
– Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice
– Michael Li, Senior Counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program
Here are some highlights from our discussion.
Q: What is gerrymandering?
Justin Levitt: Gerrymandering is when politicians manipulate district boundaries to give themselves an unfair advantage in elections. This can take many forms – sometimes they pack opposition voters into a single district (so that they win that one overwhelmingly but lose everywhere else), sometimes they crack opposition voters across multiple districts (so that those voters never have enough clout to elect anyone), and sometimes they draw bizarrely shaped districts that make no sense except as a way to achieve these goals.
Emily Bazelon: Gerrymandering has been around since the beginning of American politics – it’s named after Elbridge Gerry, who was governor of Massachusetts in 1812 and signed off on some particularly egregious district maps that looked like salamanders (hence “gerrymander”). But it’s become much more sophisticated over time with advances in technology – now politicians can use incredibly detailed data about voter behavior to slice up districts with surgical precision.
Michael Li: There are two types of gerrymandering – partisan and racial. Partisan gerrymandering is when politicians draw districts to give their party an advantage, regardless of race. Racial gerrymandering is when they do the same thing but with a focus on race.
Q: What are the consequences of gerrymandering?
Emily Bazelon: One consequence is that it can entrench political power – if you’ve drawn your district so that only people who vote for your party live there, you’re pretty much guaranteed to keep winning elections. This can create an unhealthy dynamic where politicians don’t have to worry about appealing to voters outside their base, which makes compromise and cooperation harder.
Justin Levitt: Another consequence is that it can lead to less competitive elections. If one party or the other has such a strong advantage in a district, voters from the opposing party might not even bother showing up on election day because they know their candidate doesn’t stand a chance.
Michael Li: A third consequence is that it can dilute minority voting power. For example, if you pack African American voters into one district (which often happens in Southern states), then they have no influence over any other districts and fewer opportunities to elect candidates who represent them.
Q: What are some potential solutions to gerrymandering?
Michael Li: One solution would be for independent commissions (rather than elected officials) to draw district maps based on objective criteria like compactness and keeping communities together. Some states already use this approach with good results – California’s commission has been praised as a model for others.
Justin Levitt: Another solution would be for courts to step in more aggressively when redistricting plans violate the Constitution or Voting Rights Act. There have been some recent cases where courts have struck down maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders – this could become more common if judges start using clearer standards for what constitutes an unfair map.
Emily Bazelon: Finally, there’s the possibility of new federal legislation. There are currently several bills in Congress that would require states to use independent commissions or other fair methods for drawing district maps. This would be a big step forward, but it’s unlikely to pass unless Democrats take control of both houses.
In conclusion, gerrymandering is a complex problem with no easy solutions. However, there are steps we can take to make our electoral system fairer and more democratic – whether through independent redistricting commissions, court challenges, or federal legislation. It will take sustained effort from activists and lawmakers alike to achieve these goals, but the stakes are high: without fair district boundaries, we risk eroding the very foundations of our democracy.