I’ve been straining my brain trying to remember which speaker at the old Domenici Public Policy Institute made the argument that gerrymandering was the leading cause of political division in our country.
While I don’t remember who made it, I do remember the main point. Gerrymandering has created safe districts for the party in power. That means the most dangerous threat for incumbents will come in the primary election, not the general election. Which results in elected officials who have less independence and will be more likely to toe the party line. And, it gives the leader of the party enormous power to rid himself of any lawmaker lacking sufficient loyalty.
While I don’t remember who made it, I do remember the main point. Gerrymandering has created safe districts for the party in power. That means the most dangerous threat for incumbents will come in the primary election, not the general election. Which results in elected officials who have less independence and will be more likely to toe the party line. And, it gives the leader of the party enormous power to rid himself of any lawmaker lacking sufficient loyalty.
|
It’s nothing new. The term dates back to 1812, when district boundaries drawn by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry were so contorted to gain partisan advantage it was said one new district looked like a salamander.
It was meant as an insult. And, in most of the time since then, gerrymandering has been looked down on by voters who saw it as power-hungry politicians trying to gain an unfair advantage. And so, lawmakers would typically deny what was obviously happening. When Democrats in the New Mexico Legislature gerrymandered the Congressional maps to give themselves an advantage in District 2, they came up with a cover story about wanting to add more minority representation. Plausible deniability. In the past, gerrymandering was limited to once every 10 years, following the Census when states are required by law to redraw districts to account for population shifts over the past decade. Donald Trump can’t wait for the 2030 Census. And so, he’s ordered the state of Texas to redraw its Congressional maps this year, with the specific goal of adding five more Republican seats. Which means we may get some visitors when their special session begins. Beto O’Rourke is already advising Democratic lawmakers to flee to neighboring states in order to prevent a quorum. California Governor Gavin Newsom has promised to respond by redrawing the maps in his state, and other Democratic governors are likely to follow. As with so many things in American politics, the Supreme Court has taken a bad situation and made it worse. Its 2019 ruling in Rucho v Common Cause found that, while partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles,” the court lacks the jurisdiction to stop it. While that ruling infuriates me, the truth is I don’t know enough about law and the Constitution to say that it was wrong. I do know it means that the court won’t save us. But, we should have learned that from the Citizens United ruling of 2010, which allowed for unlimited amounts of corporate donations to corrupt our elections under the theory that corporations have the same rights as people. And, we all know that the politicians won’t save us. We’ve got to save ourselves. That means an end to the win-at-all-costs mentality that now pervades in every election. Voters need to demand fairness and equal treatment for all sides in our elections. And, we need to respect the outcome, with an understanding that every election win is temporary. If the only thing American voters care about is winning … well, we get the government that we deserve. Walter Rubel can be reached at [email protected]. |
Listen to the audio version
|
RSS Feed