By Carol Lucas
I admit to having had only a vague idea of what constitutes gerrymandering, and I didn’t give it much thought until recently when several political issues were brought to the public’s attention. Discussion of these seemed to focus, in part, on gerrymandering; thus I became interested enough to dig deeper.
Perhaps it would behoove us to look at the definition of this political shenanigan. I found words like manipulate and contrive to be synonyms, and in the case of political district maps, the manipulation of boundaries for political advantage. Perhaps this is one of the greatest scams ever to be perpetrated in our country, and certainly there are plenty from which to choose.
The history of gerrymandering can be traced to 18th-century England where political operatives created “rotten boroughs” with only a few eligible voters, making it easy for politicians to buy the residents’ votes and gain seats in Parliament. After English colonists founded this country, gerrymandering began almost immediately with evidence found in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, drawing maps to benefit certain candidates. In 1812 Massachusetts map-drawing was considered even more brazen with oddly contorted districts. This redistricting was subject to the approval of Governor Ethridge Gerry, who signed off on his party’s contrived boundaries – thus the name we use today.
When Black men won the right to vote after the Civil War, gerrymandering was taken up a notch, as noted by several historians. The so-called “boa constrictor” district, a long winding configuration that concentrated Black Americans, was created after the rejection of the first non-contiguous district. This occurred in 1882 in our own state.
Gerrymandering is tied to the census, which is taken every 10 years; perhaps this is why we lose track of what is happening in the midst of all the flotsam and jetsam in the political waters. Every decade, states redraw congressional district lines, following the publication of the census.
Interestingly enough, after the 1900 census, some states didn’t change their districts until the 1960s. At that time, more people began moving to the cities, particularly Black Americans and immigrants. In those states where this became apparent, districts were maintained that gave disproportionate power to white, rural, non-immigrant Americans.
When the district maps are drawn, there are two ways to “stack the deck,” so to speak. The first is called “cracking” which is defined as diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s support across the district. The second is “packing,” and this involves concentrating the opposing party’s voting power in one district in order to reduce the same in other districts. Both are efforts to divide voting strength, and if this sounds convoluted to you, I am right there with you. Yet for some crazy reason, I have to believe it is designed to be so.
The U.S. Supreme Court changed this process in the 60s with a series of decisions known as “the redistricting revolution.” Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court ruled that all state voting districts must have roughly equal populations. And in 1995, in a 5-4 decision, gerrymandering was ruled a violation of constitutional rights, specifying redistricting that is purposely based on race. Which brings us to the more current actions surrounding this very questionable shell game.
Earlier this year, Congress had the chance to pass landmark anti-gerrymandering reform with the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act and narrowly failed. This bill would have prevented states from using severely gerrymandered maps. A part of the act would have enabled voters to ask a federal district court to analyze the maps and determine whether or not they are significantly skewed to favor one party or the other.
The state of Wisconsin is somewhat of a laboratory example of how gerrymandering works and what may be fallout with the forthcoming results. In 2012, Republicans won 60 of 99 seats in the state assembly, despite the fact that they had only 48.6% of the vote. Fast forward to 2023 where this issue was attached to a more volatile issue, that of abortion. Intense politicking took place, and part of that effort was placed upon “fair maps.”
We know that Wisconsin was able to elect a liberal judge, Janet Protasiewicz, to the state Supreme Court. She campaigned on the recent round of redistricting, claiming the maps were “rigged.” The legislature in this case had come up with what they called “the least change methodology.” A rose by another name, to use a trite euphemism to address a very serious subject. What irony that 11 years had to pass until something as riveting as abortion provided a vehicle for an equally crucial issue.
In South Carolina, a federal trial court ruled this past January that the state’s First Congressional District (represented by Nancy Mace) is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and must be redrawn by 2024. So we are part of the fray that continues across the country. And the North Carolina Republican controlled Supreme Court just this week reversed a ruling made earlier (Democratic leaning), saying the state has no right to police partisan gerrymandering. Should this go to the Supreme Court in Washington, it’s anyone’s guess on what will prevail.
Maine is the only state where legislation requires that district maps are passed on a bipartisan basis, and this is accomplished through a legislatively accepted advisory commission.
All of this begs the question, “Why do we need districts?” Why not one person, one vote? I know that congressional districts are inscribed into the Constitution to ensure representation based on population. But is this a sufficiently good reason with today’s ever-shifting population to retain them, and continue this tennis match, batting the ball back and forth? If removing districts altogether is so “anti-Constitution,” the excuse always hauled out when logic fails, why can’t we implement independent redistricting commissions in every state, like that of Maine? Then perhaps the “grift” that seems to have diminished a fair voting system will become a thing of the past.
Some source information is taken from the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan law and policy institute.
Carol Lucas is a retired high school teacher and a Lady’s Island resident. She is the author of the recently published “A Breath Away: One Woman’s Journey Through Widowhood.”
