BY AUSTIN RUFF
Professor of Sociology, Dr. Gary D. Brinker, led a Times Talk on gerrymandering in the south study area of Forsyth Library this past Wednesday. In his discussion, Professor Brinker discussed the problems gerrymandering poses, its effect on the democratic process, and potential solutions for curbing its use.
Gerrymandering is a practice used by governments to obtain an unfair advantage by manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts. The term “gerrymandering” has its origins in the policies of Massachusetts Governor, Elbridge Gerry. Gerry became infamous for signing a bill in 1812, which created a bizarre, salamander-looking partisan district in the Boston area. The district garnered public outcry and a negative connotation toward the term has existed ever since.
Brinker began by describing the common practices of gerrymandering, which included “cracking” and “packing.” He used handouts with D’s and R’s spread across the page to illustrate these concepts. Brinker asked attendees to draw districts that favored one letter over another.
To do this, one must “crack,” by diluting the voting power of the opposing party across many districts, and “pack” the opposing party into only a few districts. This causes an unfair and unrepresentative result. However, “It’s just too tempting of a tool to use,” says Brinker when describing state governments who employ the tactic.
Brinker conducted research that looked into how partisan bias affects the use of gerrymandering across the country. Partisan bias is how far districts deviate from being perfectly proportional to the citizens that they represent. His research found that states with higher partisan bias often have more extreme laws and gerrymandering.
“Partisan bias has an enormous impact on the issues addressed in a given state,” he said.
For example, take any hotly-debated issue. A state might be split 51/49 on the issue, but because of partisan bias, the party that holds the slim majority can use that power to impose extreme laws regarding the issue on the entire population.
“Partisan bias often results in governments imposing more extreme laws on its citizens,” Brinker said.
Brinker also found a high correlation between a state with a large partisan bias and the election of the corresponding party’s candidates. Because of these partisan policies and gerrymandering, it makes it extremely difficult for opposing candidates to be elected, despite holding a significant part of the electorate. When asked by an attendee if situations like this affect voter’s rights, Brinker said, “It absolutely takes away the rights of voters.”
The question of whether or not gerrymandering is constitutional has been brought to the nation’s highest court a number of times throughout the last century. More recently, in 2019, the High Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that the issue of partisan gerrymandering is a political question and not one that should be brought to the federal government.
“Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” said Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion.
Traditionally, two solutions have been proposed to combat the problem: non-partisan commissions and a cap on partisan bias by a third party. Despite several states employing the solution of non-partisan commissions drawing their districts, Brinker disagrees, saying, “There are no ‘non-partisan’ commissions anymore.”
His concern with a so-called “cap” on partisan bias is the method used to calculate that bias and where to set the cap.
“The big hold-up is how do we set the threshold,” he said.
Attendees also expressed concern to this method, with one attendee asking, “The very process of setting the cap could become partisan. Then what?”
Brinker then proposed the solution he believed to be best suited based on the research he had conducted. He prefaced by saying, “This solution precludes the need for a constitutional one.” He proposes that officials from each party take turns drawing the districts, perhaps with the winning party going first to provide some advantage. This could result in equal amounts of partisan cracking and packing, in turn creating pseudo-proportional representation and limiting the adverse effects of one-sided gerrymandering.
“This is a solution for the present moment,” he said.
Any fundamental change would have to take place at the congressional level in statutory law.
Redistricting is in full swing across all 50 states, and in both Republican and Democratic states, it appears gerrymandering will continue to be used as a partisan tool, playing for the next election and not for democracy.