Every ten years, state and local governments take data from the census to engage in redistricting – drawing new voting district boundaries based on demographic data. The reasons for doing so (besides the fact that it’s constitutionally required) are numerous. For starters, state legislatures are supposed to make sure that districts have roughly equal populations to ensure equal representation for voters across any given state. Additionally, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, state governments must ensure that drawn districts do not dilute the electoral power of minority groups. In other words, districts are meant to “look like America”, both politically and demographically. Ultimately, the process is meant to ensure equal representation for voters and free, fair elections.

But problems can arise when a state legislature is solidly blue or red. All too often, we see state legislatures taking advantage of this responsibility in order to manipulate the outcomes of elections. In a process known as partisan redistricting, or, more commonly, gerrymandering, state governments can create district borders for political gain, diluting the power of the opposition party. According to the Brennan Center for justice, this means that “rather than voters choosing their representatives, gerrymandering empowers politicians to choose their voters” (Kirshenbaum). Such manipulation is accomplished by splitting up voters with the same political affiliation, making it impossible for voters to rally behind their preferred candidate in a district.

When such partisan redistricting occurs, the inevitable impact is that the party responsible for the partisan districts wins more representation, allowing them to create even more partisan maps and repeating the cycle. This cycle decreases electoral democracy and disillusions Americans who increasingly feel that their votes do not matter. Furthermore, diluting the power of likeminded voters also makes legislators less responsive to certain local demands and preferences by changing their electoral constituency, according to the Harvard Gazette (DeSmith).

While some rulings by the Supreme Court have limited state legislature’s ability to rig elections through gerrymandering, in some instances, they have expanded the opportunity for partisan redistricting. For example, a ruling in 2019 stated that political gerrymandering was allowed, as long as it didn’t dilute minority voting power. However, it also blurred the line between these two concepts, as there are strong correlations between certain demographic factors and party affiliation. This ruling in effect allows state governments, particularly in the South, to spread minority voting power across multiple districts, thus making it nearly impossible for them to shore up support for candidates that support their interests. What is more, the Court has no authority to enforce its decisions, meaning that unless the federal executive or legislative branches step in, state legislatures can choose to ignore demands from the Court for fairer districts.

It is clear that In order to make elections fair and competitive, Congress must take action and pass legislation restricting partisan redistricting. One measure that could limit the impacts of gerrymandering is by requiring that district plans be approved by nonpartisan committees to ensure that they are not diluting the power of marginalized groups. Another solution might be for state courts to intervene in instances of gerrymandering, requiring legislatures to redraw their district maps. Ultimately, gerrymandering has become deeply ingrained as a norm in our political system, greatly impacting political outcomes. As such, we must address this issue to ensure that all voters’ voices are heard in our elections.

Sources:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/07/biggest-problem-with-gerrymandering/