Is Gerrymandering Fair Game or the End of the United States

 

      Boston Gazette, March 26, 1812

Is Gerrymandering Fair Game or the End of the United States?

The last time the White House faced this level of destruction was during the War of 1812, when the British burned it down. Indeed, America’s addiction to unfairness – where those with power and drafting skills – designed a system that assumed that our highest elected officials would be men (sorry, no women yet) of moral character always putting the people ahead of personal gains and ambitions. George Washington set the tone by refusing to be treated like the monarch from which our nation broke away, would not accept more than two terms and by serving as a mediator between federalists and those seeking more power to the states. The nation was 95% farmers, fishermen and hunters-for-food back then. But then… er… now…

Under the Constitution, the Senate is based on two Senators from each state, regardless of population, and charged with limited powers (e.g., confirming high-level presidential appointments, ratifying treaties, etc.) and given stability of a 6-year term. The House is based on populations in state-determined “districts” – of roughly 600,000 people (minimum of one per state) – with equally defined powers (e.g., the right to initiate all appropriations bills), but given a highly volatile 2-year term. Bills have to pass both of these legislative bodies to be sent to the president for signature or veto. A 2/3 vote of all of Congress can override a veto.

But there was a huge and vile fly in this political ointment. You can draw of those House districts to be representative of the people who live in those states, or you can warp out serpentine shaped districts to disenfranchise identifiable constituencies of voters. By race. Political persuasion. Or whim. That serpent was called a Gerry Mander in 1812, but after the Civil War, reconstruction, even after constitutional amendments to give former slave the vote were enacted, gerrymanders and voter intimidation kept former slaves far from fair representation. It was a policy that was so bad, that in 1965, Lyndon Johnson helped push through the Voting Rights Act. It placed particularly abusive states under federal control and created special provisions targeting racial bias.

But in 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted those provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and oncethose federal controls were lifted, the racially inspired gerrymandering in those states resumed almost instantly. Today, the racial discrimination provision of the act, Section 2, appears that it will be so narrowly construed by the Court so as to be meaningless. Starting with a pliable Texas governor and legislature, President Donald Trump has urged Republican-held states nationwide to revise their congressional maps to ensure GOP control of the House, even if that reconfiguration disenfranchised millions of voters. California retaliated to counter the Texas redistricting, and Indiana refused to play ball with Trump, extracting Trump’s wrath in the upcoming primaries.

So where are we. Writing for the December 15th Los Angeles Times, David Lieb writes: “What changed? The definition of fair.’… As states undertake mid-decade redistricting instigated by President Trump, Republicans and Democrats are using a tit-for-tat definition of fairness to justify districts that split communities in an attempt to send politically lopsided delegations to Congress. It is fair, they argue, because other states have done the same. And it is necessary, they say, to maintain a partisan balance in the House of Representatives that resembles the national political divide.

“This new vision for drawing congressional maps is creating a winner-take-all scenario that treats the House, traditionally a more diverse patchwork of politicians, like the Senate, where members reflect a state’s majority party. The result could be reduced power for minority communities, less attention to certain issues and fewer distinct voices heard in Washington.

“Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky fears that unconstrained gerrymandering would put the United States on a perilous path, if Democrats in states such as Texas and Republicans in states such as California feel shut out of electoral politics. ‘I think that it’s going to lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,’ he said Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

“Although Indiana state senators rejected a new map backed by Trump and [Indiana Gov. Mike] Braun that could have helped Republicans win all nine of the state’s congressional seats, districts have already been redrawn in Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Other states could consider changes before the 2026 midterms that will determine control of Congress… ‘It’s a fundamental undermining of a key democratic condition, said Wayne Fields, a retired English professor from Washington University in St. Louis who is an expert on political rhetoric… ‘The House is supposed to represent the people,’ Fields said. ‘We gain an awful lot by having particular parts of the population heard.’” An unabashedly pro-Trump 6-3 Supreme Court majority is both weak and determined to move the United State into an authoritarian presidency.

The feared result of all this, expected in June, is most crass and fundamental cronyism, where loyalty and, for the mega-rich, well-placed donations, dictate policy… where those without money are simply squeezed out. Trump’s track record on this speaks, yells, for itself. But the Supreme Court seems determined to redefine our government, from top to bottom. And voters and any traditional definition of constitutional fairness be damned.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I agree that partisan gerrymandering could easily turn the country into an illiberal nation where the rich and powerful get it all.