It stays, for now, because elected officials like it

Redistricting is the process of drawing electoral boundaries for state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives.  The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, section 4) gives state legislatures the authority to draw the boundaries.  

In most states, redistricting includes substantial political maneuvering.  The majority party will intentionally manipulate political boundaries to maximize the number of seats it can win.  This process is called partisan gerrymandering and typically includes packing minority party members (voters) into as few districts as possible or by isolating them across several districts.    

Public opinion polls show voters are strongly united in their opposition to partisan gerrymandering.  The public considers gerrymandering political corruption that disenfranchises millions of voters across the country. 

Several states have responded by placing the responsibility for redistricting with redistricting commissions that are tasked with drawing boundaries in an equitable, nonpartisan, or bipartisan way. 

Yet most state legislators are reluctant to hand over authority.     

Why?

Because they like it.   Gerrymandering protects their jobs.  Would you willingly part with the power to secure your own future?   

Consider these four gerrymandering examples.   

Manipulating the district to win

In 2018, Maryland’s 3^rd congressional district was perhaps the single worst gerrymander in the nation. The district passed in and out of four counties and Baltimore City, snaking its way northeast from Annapolis, then west, again eastward, and then northwest until it nearly reached the top of the state. 

Observers likened the district to “blood spatter at a crime scene.”  With such a bizarre shape, and a border 225 miles long, it’s difficult for voters to access – or even know – their House member. 

The district is drawn to maximize the odds of a Democrat victory.  Since winning the seat in 2006, incumbent Democrat Joe Sarbanes has in fact enjoyed landslide victories. 

Nothing pleases politicians more than knowing their re-elections are safe.  The gerrymander makes that possible.    

Manipulating the district to marginalize the opposition

Lawrence, Kansas an intense blue dot in a sea of red is in Kansas’s 1^st congressional district.  The 1^st district borders Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, making it one of the largest land area congressional districts in the United States. 

In 2022, Tracy Mann, Republican, won the district by nearly 40 points. 

Mann was born and raised on his family farm in rural western Kansas – an area thoroughly dominated by Republicans for many decades.  According to his web site, Mann’s fondest memories include working cattle with his grandfather on Saturday afternoons while listening to K-state football on the radio.    

By contrast, Lawrence is home to the University of Kansas – a liberal bubble in the northeastern portion of the state.  Well over half of Lawrence residents earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, and even more identify as Democrats.  Compare this to state figures that show approximately a third of Kansans possessing a bachelor’s degree of higher and about a third identifying as Democrat.

In 2016, Donald Trump easily won the state by 21 points.  Yet in Douglas County – where Lawrence is located – Trump lost by over 30 points. 

The Republican legislature recognized that splitting Lawrence from neighboring suburban areas in districts 2 and 3 – which are the logical districts for Lawrence – and joining it with rural constituencies in western Kansas, would effectively silence Lawrence voters and make competing for the college town’s residents largely irrelevant.  Tracey Mann, in other words, can safely ignore Lawrence.   

Here the gerrymander effectively quarantines a group of voters.  The manipulation has nothing to do with winning.  Rather, the purpose is to stifle a hotbed of the opposition.    

Manipulating the district to advance a career

In 2001, second term Illinois state senator Barack Obama had the opportunity that would change the course of his political career.  Illinois Democrats won the right to redistrict the state’s legislative seats. 

An earlier loss to House of Representative incumbent Bobby Rush taught Obama he was more than a Chicago inner-city politician.  His popularity was broader.  The demographic he could win most easily was white voters – specifically young white professionals.    

He would employ a partisan gerrymander to build a constituency suitable for a U.S. senate bid.    

Like his old state senate district – shown in turquoise and outlined in bold blue, Obama’s new map included some of the poorest areas in Chicago and African Americans were still the majority.  But the new district – outlined in bold red, was much wealthier, whiter, less blue-collar, and better educated.  It covered much of Chicago’s main economic hub, stretching up Michigan Avenue and into the Gold Coast – retailers, museums, parks, skyscrapers, and lakefront apartment buildings.   Finally, the new boundaries included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in the Chicago. 

Obama’s gerrymandered district exposed him to people on museum boards and CEOs of large corporations, many were top political donors in the state. 

Redistricting also helped Democrats win a majority in the Illinois senate, which elevated Obama’s legislative stature and allowed him to accomplish much more.  As a member of the majority party, Obama passed important legislation that burnished his progressive credentials while simultaneously developing a reputation as a pragmatists willing to work across the aisle.    

Redistricting thus gave Obama money, and it gave him power.  The gerrymander’s purpose was not a third term as state senator, nor helping Democrats achieve a majority in the state senate.  Obama’s gerrymander was a way to elevate Barack Obama.      

Stopping a rising star

In 1850, Illinois Democrats had redrawn state legislative districts to preserve their majority.   Redistricting was especially important at the time because state legislatures were responsible for choosing U.S. senators.  This would later change with the 17^th amendment that established direct elections of U.S. senators.     

After an unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid in 1854, Abraham Lincoln ran four years later against Democrat incumbent Stephen A. Douglas.  Despite Lincoln winning the popular vote by nearly 30,000, strategically drawn district boundaries once again produced Democrat majorities in both houses of the state legislature.  Consequently, when the Illinois general assembly met, they dutifully voted for Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln 54 to 46.   

Vexed by the Senate losses, Lincoln decided to by-pass the Senate entirely and instead run for president in 1860.

Would Lincoln have run for the presidency if he had won the Senate race?  Hard to say.  But what’s clear is that gerrymandering fundamentally altered his career trajectory.          

Bottom Line

Gerrymandering challenges fundamental principles of equality and fairness.   Parties now use mapping technology and big data techniques to pick exactly who they want in or out of a voting district.  Some voting groups matter more than others.      

That’s not fair, that’s not political equality, and that’s not democracy. 

Yet, what is considered fair and what is considered equal often turns on one’s party identification.  The losing party will predictably cry foul.  But when the tables turn, and the minority party wins a majority, it too uses gerrymandering.

For elected officials, the gerrymander represents job security and advancement.  Removing the authority to redistrict thus threatens those in power.      

Finally, like many other political rules, eliminating the gerrymander will change politics in expected and unexpected ways.   

For example, absent the partisan gerrymander Maryland’s 3^rd congressional district would be competitive and Lawrence, Kansas would be placed in the 2^{nd or} 3^rd congressional district.  Both expected results.  However, without the gerrymander Barack Obama likely stays a state senator, and Abraham Lincoln a U.S. Senator.