Month: March 2022

Over the past few weeks I’ve discussed the concept of gerrymandering and the numerous issues of it. For this week, however, I’d like to analyze the methods through which gerrymandering can be identified and dealt with.

Before we begin I’d just like to remind everyone that there are countless reasons behind [and methods of] gerrymandering. To rectify this issue we must first identify instances of it and agree on proper rules and regulations to it in order to balance out the adverse effects that it can have on voter representation [amongst other things].

The most general way to go about identifying gerrymandering is to examine the shapes of districts, as those effected by gerrymandering tend to be distorted or weirdly shaped. For example…

Pennsylvania’s 12th District:

Texas’s 2nd District:

Illinois’ 4th District:

Evidently all three of these districts [amongst others across the nation] have rather odd shapes. From this observation comes a natural inclination to refer to these districts as gerrymandered–but in a court of law something can’t be deemed “wrong” simply because it looks like it is. It’s not a strong enough case. Subsequently political scientists have developed two [more definitive] ways to “measure” gerrymandering.

The first of those methods refers to something known as compactness.

Compactness attempts to quantify the degree to which districts are distorted [by gerrymandering]. It involves a mathematical calculation of a district’s area in relation to its perimeter. This calculation provides an estimate of how effectively the district contains its area. The system utilizes an index [of measures] that is developed by analyzing the area to perimeter ratio of a district in comparison to that of a circle. An index of 1 defines the district as a perfect circle, the most compact shape. When a district has an index lower than 1 it is less compact and thus more likely to be distorted [or gerrymandered].

Many state constitutions forbid the needless [and excessive] division of geo-political boundaries. Subsequently the compactness index allows for individuals to present clear evidence of said division, without relying on baseless claims regarding the “unusual” shape of a district.

The main issue with this method tends to be that it fails to take into account the fact that not every “unusually” shaped district is gerrymandered, and not every gerrymandered district is going to appear distorted. Moreover, this discrepancy is the main reason why this method is flawed, and as a result is rarely used in any real court cases.

Another method used to measure gerrymandering refers to examining something known as the efficiency gap.

This method focuses on comparing the voting power of each political party in a particular state. The efficiency gap calculates the amount of “wasted votes” from each party. It then compares said numbers to determine whether or not either party had some sort of advantage in regards to the number of votes that they received and the number of seats that they won.

The first step in determining the gap involves finding wasted votes. In this sense “wasted votes” refer to every vote cast for the losing party and any votes cast for the winning party that exceed a simple majority. After the total number of wasted votes [within each party] is calculated for a certain state, the net difference is calculated between the Democrats and Republicans.

For example, Policy Map provides a detailed example of the efficiency gap calculation. They explain that if Republicans waste 75 votes while Democrats waste 100 votes, the Democrats will have a net wasted value of 25.

The final calculation identifies whether or not one party won a larger number of seats in comparison to a neutral district plan. For example, a 40% efficiency gap for one party would mean that that party received 40% more of the seats than it deserved [based on the neutral district plan/proportionally fair share of its supporters].

The efficiency gap method is able to highlight cracking and packing gerrymandering methods through its focus on wasted votes–something both gerrymandering methods attempt to increase the number of. [They want to increase the number of wasted votes that their opposition has, while decreasing the amount that their candidate has]. Moreover, by centering around each political party’s respective voting power this method showcases and highlights the number of voters unable to contribute to the election based on a variety of reasons pertaining to their district.

Regardless of the effectivity of these methods, they both raise a clear point–that gerrymandering needs to be identified and dealt with. There are many ways that we, as a society, could go about eradicating the presence of unfair and distorted districts.

One way being to take cases of gerrymandering to court. In the previous parts I’ve mentioned a bit about court rulings in regards to gerrymandering, and some of theme have proven to be quite successful. For instance, as a result of the court process racial gerrymandering has been completely banned [and it is now illegal]. Partisan gerrymandering, however, is still very much present and technically legalized.

Another way to deal with the issue is to create IRCs (Independent Redistricting Commissions) dedicated to drawing fair maps. To put it simply if we can limit the power that self-serving politicians have in the district drawing process than we may be able to combat gerrymandering. Moreover, if IRCs allow voters to have more of a say in how district maps are drawn it is more likely that the interests of the people will be taken care of. IRCs will also be obligated to draw maps that meet certain requirements in compilation with the Voting Rights Act that is meant to ensure citizens equitable representation in the government.

Finally, similar to the first option, another solution is to lobby for the federal government to ban all gerrymandering. If gerrymandering become illegal on a federal level it will force state governments to crack down on the issue. Overall a federal ban would be the most effective way to ensure accurate voter representation and equity nationwide.

Furthermore, the issue of gerrymandering is undeniably a complicated one, but it is also a vital one. Gerrymandering, in any sense, deprives people of their right [as an American] to have equal representation in the government. There are many methods that could be utilized to combat the issue. No method is perfect, but all of them prove that something must be done to reduce the adverse effects that gerrymandering has on voter representation within the US.

 

SOURCES:

Court Cases and Gerrymandering – Vox

Gerrymandering Districts – Fulcrum

Is Gerrymandering Good Now? – Rothman 

District Images – Fulcrom/Meyers

Gerrymandering Solutions – Azavea

Compactness – Harvard University

Last week I focused heavily on partisan gerrymandering and the adverse impacts that it has on society and representation. This week, however, I’d like to focus on the concept of racial gerrymandering, and raise the question as to whether or not, in modern America, we need to be worried about the damage that racial gerrymandering can have in regards to representation.

I’d like to just begin by explaining the concept of racial gerrymandering very briefly. Racial gerrymandering refers to the political practice of diluting the voting power of racial minorities as a method of suppressing voters. Moreover, it is exactly like partisan gerrymandering, but rather than try to suppress political parties, this form tries to suppress certain races.

One example of racial gerrymandering [in the history of the US] can be seen through Alabama’s capital [and the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th districts].

The 7th district is heavily democratic. The problem with this district is that it has many narrow strips [as visible above] that encompass cities and towns with black majority populations–including the city of Birmingham, which is incredibly far away when compared to other areas within the district. From an image alone it might be hard to understand the severity of racial gerrymandering in this instance, so let’s look at an example. In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones was running for Senate. He managed to win the statewide popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. However, he did not end up winning, because the only district he carried was the 7th [a district that is 63% African American]. From the discrepancy between popular and electoral vote, it can be deduced that without these “contortions” of district lines, Jones would’ve won. Had he won he would have been the second democratic [and African American] member of Alabama’s House delegation [which is made up of 7 members. Given the fact that Alabama has a 25% African American population and a 34% Democratic vote [as of 2016] this level of representation wouldn’t have been anything crazy–but due to racial [and partisan] gerrymandering this outcome could not come to fruition.

Another example of racial gerrymandering is apparent through Baton Rouge and the districts of Louisiana.

In this scenario both District 2 and District 6 have fairly odd shapes. In fact it looks like the 2nd has been inserted into 6th. Notably the 2nd District was drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. District 6 has an African American [voting age] population of 21.5%. This percentage is so low because, in 2011, Republicans redrew district lines to move a massive amount of African Americans, living on the north side of Baton Rouge, into the highly Democratic 2nd district. As a result, the 2nd district became an extremely packed district that reaches all the way from Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Subsequently the district takes a very weird shape and packs minorities into one district, limiting voter representation.

As terrible as this all is, it’s important to note that in the past few years gerrymandering cases have moved to the forefront, as a number of social justice organizations have taken on state cases of racial [and partisan] gerrymandering.

One of these cases is Abbott v. Perez [Texas]. This case states that in 2011, the Republican State Legislature of Texas ‘redrew’ the voting districts. While redrawing them they affected the size and shape of a lot of the districts–particularly District 27 and District 35. Democrats claimed that these districts were redrawn specifically to “pack in” Latinx voters, subsequently diluting their electoral power within Texas. 6 years later in March of 2017, federal judges ruled that Republican legislators did in fact engage in racial gerrymandering when creating these districts. This ruling was later validated in August of the same year, as judges claimed that District 27’s boundaries “intentionally deprived [Latino voters] of their opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.” They also found District 35 to be an “impermissible [case of] racial gerrymandering.” They also urged Texas to redraw the districts in time for the 2018 election season. However, they later evoked this urging, ruling 5-4 that Texas did not have to change their congressional maps in time for the 2018 elections, despite being guilty of racial gerrymandering. As a result of this decision the GOP was ensured a majority in Texas, while subsequently reducing the political representation of the Latinx community. Moreover, while these cases have made it to the Supreme Court they do not always end up placating the problems that ensue as a result for racial gerrymandering.

Another notable Supreme Court case related to racial gerrymandering is Shaw v. Reno. Shaw v. Reno was a court case brought about in 1993 that raised the question: did the North Carolina residents who claimed that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional concern under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? In this case the North Carolina state legislator had originally created only one black majority district. When their plan was rejected, they created a second one–this time with two districts [one of which was incredibly small]. The case ended with a final vote of 5-4 in favor of Shawn. It ruled that classifying citizens on the basis of race was in direct conflict with the American political value of equality. Moreover, Shaw v. Reno was a landmark case for the issue of racial gerrymandering, as it set a precedent in regards to the 14th amendment hat would be used throughout the decades following the ruling.

Furthermore, this blog post only highlights some of the many ways through which that racial gerrymandering robs minorities of their voter representation. Luckily there have been quite a few landmark Supreme Court cases that have challenged the constitutionality of this form of gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has managed to help placate racial gerrymandering on numerous occasions, but that doesn’t mean that the problem is entirely resolved–in fact there is a great deal of racial gerrymandering that still needs to be challenged. Moreover, it is important that the Supreme Court be utilized in cases of racial gerrymandering, as it is very much unconstitutional as well as damaging to the political representation of the American people.

 

SOURCES:

Court Cases and Gerrymandering — Vox

Gerrymandering Districts — Fulcrum

Is Gerrymandering Good Now? — Rothman 

District Images –Fulcrom/Meyers

In my past few blog posts I’ve discussed quite a few women who have been overlooked throughout US history; and I am going to continue that trend this week by focusing on Sybil Ludington.

Ludington was born in New York in 1761. She was the eldest of twelve children. Her father, Henry Ludington, worked as a farmer and a gristmill owner. He also served in the military for roughly sixty years, fighting in conflicts like the French and Indian War. He was a staunch loyalist [to the British throne] until around 1773, when he joined the Patriots in the fight for independence / the American Revolution. Eventually he was promoted to Colonel of a local regiment, which was based between Connecticut and the coast of Long Island Sound–meaning that his regiment was incredibly vulnerable to British attack.

On the 26th of April of 1777, Colonel Ludington learned [from a rider from a nearby town known as Danbury] that they were under attack from British troops. Ludington’s regiment was meant to go help defend the town of Danbury from British attack; however, at the time of attack they were disbanded for planting season, meaning that all of Ludington’s men were at their respective farms–miles apart and miles away from Danbury.

The rider was too exhausted to travel any farther, so Ludington simply decided that he must focus on preparing for a battle. As he prepared for the inevitable, Sybil Ludington decided to rise to the cause. The circumstances of her decision, however, are unknown, as some believe that she choose / volunteered to fight, while others believe that her father asked her to help. Regardless, she rode [on horseback] throughout that night to alert her father’s men of the danger, encouraging them to come back from their break and fight. It is estimated that she covered anywhere between 20 to 40 miles of terrain that night, priding though dark woods and rainy weather. By the time her ride concluded she had managed to get hundreds of soldiers to return to the fight. Unfortunately, the soldiers didn’t arrive soon enough to defeat the British, but they did manage to put up a fight with the British soldiers as they departed.

Regardless of the success of the battle, Ludington’s efforts should not be overlooked. As a woman of the 18th century she did not have to partake in the revolution–in fact some may have argued that it wasn’t her place–but she did anyway. Her action and her courage is impressive and commendable. Her efforts can also be associated with other women who partook in similar events, but failed to get recognition. Moreover, it is important that we understand and know of impactful figures like Sybil Ludington, who contributed, in spite of challenges, to the greater good.

Following the war, she got married at the age of 23 in 1784 to Edward Ogden. They had one son named Henry and lived together in Catskill, New York. Just 15 years into their marriage, her husband died of yellow fever in 1799. Then in 1803, she purchased a tavern to help earn money to help her son become a lawyer. She ended up selling the tavern for a profit of three times what she paid for it. With her profit she purchased a home for her, her son, and his family. Eventually, however, her son died in 1838. After his death she decided to apply for a Revolutionary War pension, since her husband had served in the military. Her request was denied, as it was claimed that she lacked proof of marriage. So, unfortunately, Ludington died at the age of 77 in poverty.

 

Following her death, however, she ended up being honored far more for her accomplishments. For example, she received a stamp by the Postal Service in 1975. She also has a statue by Lake Gleneida in Carmel, New York. There are also historical markers that trace along the route of her ride in Putnam County.

 

Source

Image

Image

Image