Analysis: Gerrymandering means that almost all US state maps are drawn to benefit the party in power, some more egregiously than others
Follow US political commentary for any length of time, and you’ll come across references to "safe" seats. Usually, this is without any discussion of what makes a particular seat safe or how it got that way, but rather in terms of control of Congress (or State legislatures) or what the safety of a seat in Congress (or lack thereof) allows a given Representative or Senator to do or say.
Reading such analysis, it can be easy to assume that these seats are safe (meaning non-competitive) because voters are happy with their current representation. Digging a bit deeper, maybe the seat is safe because the voters in that area are overwhelming on one side of the partisan divide. This is often true, but how those districts become safe is not so straightforward as simple voter preference. In fact, such safe seats are often a result of one of the more un-democratic aspects of US politics: gerrymandering.
From The Washington Post, an explainer on gerrymandering
Incredibly important, but often poorly-understood, gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral districts so as to benefit one political party over its rivals. It’s how neighbours can have different representatives or how people hundreds of miles apart can have the same representative. It’s how we end up with Congressional districts which have been described as a "rabbit on a skateboard", "the snake on the lake" or a "praying mantis".
Not all gerrymandered districts are so obvious, but almost all state maps are drawn to benefit the party in power, some more egregiously than others. State officials are able to do this because the Constitution gives States control over much of the electoral process. They set residency requirements for voting, determine where polling places are located and determine what types of absentee or early voting are permissible.
This also includes drawing up representative districts at both the state and national level. Federal law mandates that all districts consider population and minority representation, but in practice, most electoral maps reflect the priorities of the party in power rather than the broader electorate.
From WUSA9, is the 3rd Congressional District the most bizarre and baffling electoral district in the United States?
These political priorities are on full display every ten years when electoral maps are redrawn following the reapportioning of seats in the House of Representatives and State legislatures to reflect population changes captured in the US census. The number of seats in the House has been constant since 1929, but the number of representatives from each state is linked to the state's population.
There is a significant reshuffling after each census as some states gain seats, others lose them and all must redraw their electoral maps. This redistricting process is incredibly contentious as majority parties seek to isolate and divide their opponent’s voters against minority party resistance.
Very occasionally, a redistricting fight comes to the attention of the national media, but it is incredibly rare and even then, unlikely to garner as much attention as other aspects of political coverage. Not only does the redrawing of electoral maps happen behind closed doors and usually months or years away from the elections which will use those maps, but it’s a complicated, detailed and very, very dry part of politics.
From Vox, why the US Supreme Court just made this map illegal - and how it could affect the 2024 election
Gerrymandering is very important, but it’s not nearly as exciting as the people and dramas of politics itself, the constant speculation on who will win, who is winning, and who is on the outs. As a result, there’s less incentive for the media to cover efforts to draw maps to cement party control over state politics, much less the attempts to challenge these practices. That said, gerrymandering is getting more attention lately, including coverage of efforts to expand the use of nonpartisan redistricting commissions, US Supreme Court challenges, Republican anger at new maps replacing Wisconsin's notorious "swiss cheese districts" and critiques that North Carolina is so gerrymandered as to no longer be a democracy.
These examples highlight yet another reason gerrymandering persists despite its many critics: it's almost impossible to reverse gerrymandering in court. Primarily because it’s not the act of gerrymandering at stake, but its consequences as gerrymandering itself is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.
Therefore, plaintiffs must prove that these gerrymandered districts violate the Constitution in other ways, such as by restricting citizens’ First Amendment rights or by compromising the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause (meaning that the States must govern impartially). Of course, it can be hard to prove these cases and, importantly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot rule on partisan gerrymanders (as contrasted with racial ones), which is why a federal judge was able to strike down a Louisiana map in June 2022.
From Vox, the difference between racial and partisan gerrymandering
Further complicating the issue is that there is no consensus as to how much gerrymandering is too much, particularly in terms of the growing use of partisan, rather than racial or class-based gerrymanders. Recent efforts, including a "mathematicians brief" in a 2019 Supreme Court case, to use algorithms and sophisticated mathematical formulae to prove that certain maps effectively, and concretely, isolate and condense voters far more than would be expected without an intention to do just that. These efforts show promise, but their reliance on complex maths means that the general public – and even Supreme Court justices – struggle to understand and apply them.
Perhaps in time, a combination of technology and organising will bring about more representative maps where citizens of all political persuasions have a reasonable chance of feeling like their votes count. Until then, voters must navigate the frustrations and confusion that comes with this menagerie of complicated, sprawling, and often disjointed districts.
Follow the RTÉ Brainstorm WhatsApp channel for more stories and updates
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
