We completed the U.S. Census forms this spring. The results will be used by the federal government to decide how to spend taxpayer money; states will use the Census data to redraw electoral district boundaries starting next year.
The way states redraw boundaries can affect who runs for office, who wins, or who stays in office without serious opposition. The boundaries that get created next year will last a decade, until after the next Census occurs.
Candidates for Congress or state Legislatures can run for office on a relatively level playing field, or compete in a district where the results are essentially pre-determined because of gerrymandering, a grassroots national group fighting the rigging of district boundaries contends.
Katie Vicsik, the Florida State Director for All On The Line, took time out from her organizing activities to do an email interview. She represents one group that is fighting gerrymandering across the country.
Question: Many readers have heard about gerrymandering. Some may have even heard of excessive gerrymandering. Can you define these terms? And give concrete examples of each?
Vicsik: To put it simply, gerrymandering is cheating. Any amount of gerrymandering is cheating, from one district in a state, to excessively gerrymandering an entire state.
After the 2020 Census, states will begin to draw their lines. If we do not get it right when maps are drawn in 2021, we will have to wait another 10 years to fix partisan gerrymandering, and see progress on the issues we care about most.
Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing those lines in a way that benefits one political party over the other, or drawing lines that intentionally favor or disfavors an elected official. A gerrymandered state means the district lines are drawn to enable one party to win fewer votes statewide, but still control more seats in government.
Currently, there are far too many district maps that have been deliberately manipulated to favor a political party. States have to redistrict; they certainly do not have to gerrymander.
Question: Why is it important to confront gerrymandering and excessive gerrymandering?
Vicsik: Politicians who represent a gerrymandered seat will most likely cater to the extremes of their party and special interests over the people they are supposed to represent and protect. Because of this, gerrymandering will lead to the gridlock and hyper-partisanship that so many Americans have grown tired of.
Gerrymandering touches so many issues that Americans care about. It creates a structural barrier that prevents progress on all of the important issues facing our country: climate change, gun violence prevention, health care, reproductive rights, immigration reform. For example, a majority of Americans support common sense gun violence prevention solutions, yet it is hard to make progress due to gerrymandering.
Question: How does gerrymandering hurt a segment of the U.S. population? What segments of citizens are hurt most?
Vicsik: Gerrymandering is often most detrimental to communities who have historically been marginalized by either packing similar voters into a single district or splitting them into many districts to dilute their influence, or pick the representative of their choice.
Communities of color get hit the hardest by gerrymandering. Politicians often intentionally use data on race to draw district lines in a way that significantly diminishes minority voting power.
Question: Tell me about All On the Line. What is it? How long has it existed? Who formed it?
Vicsik: All On The Line is a campaign of the National Redistricting Action Fund (NRAF), an affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), which is chaired by Eric H. Holder, Jr., the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.
All On The Line is a grassroots campaign. We want to encourage participation in the redistricting process and make the upcoming redistricting the most people-powered and transparent in history. We have to defend our democratic ideals and increase grassroots engagement in the next few years in order to restore fairness to our democracy and ensure every American has an equal say in our government.
We want to raise awareness about the harmful impact gerrymandering has on our broken political system.
Question: Where is All On The Line Doing Its Work?
Vicsik: All On The Line understands that the fight for fair maps is happening all over the country. However, the campaign has identified a number of key target states where we can have an impact on the upcoming redistricting process in 2021-2022. You can learn more about our target states, here: www.allontheline.org
Question: How can people find out about the All On the Line online course? What will volunteers learn if they take the course? What will they be able to do once they complete it?
Vicsik: All On The Line offers a virtual Redistricting U training. Redistricting U is the next step in empowering this movement in the fight for fair maps. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution to map manipulation, so at Redistricting U, we are empowering volunteers to be leaders in this fight and providing them with the knowledge, skills, and tools to impact redistricting. Each training will be customized to the state and local level. We start with the basics like the history and landscape of gerrymandering, and what the process looks like. Then we’ll dive into building a state-specific game plan to take action on redistricting. You can find opportunities to get involved at https://www.mobilize.us/allontheline/ .
Question: All On the Line offers a solution to the gerrymandering problem. What other ways exist to make our electoral system more representative of the one person-one vote concept our country holds dear? Are so-called nonpartisan statewide commissions to redraw boundaries one way to go? What states have these commissions? How do they work?
Vicsik: Independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions help make politicians more responsive to their constituents and more likely to seek common-sense solutions that the majority of Americans support.
These commissions are very important to ensuring a fair and transparent process. Commission states may have different processes, but what they have in common is they take the power away from politicians and give it to the people, where it belongs.
Another example is implementing strict standards for the redistricting process, like Florida has tried to do when it passed the Fair Districts amendments.
Question: Is there anything else I didn’t give you a chance to say?
Vicsik: All On The Line is working hard to advocate for a fair and transparent redistricting process across the country. We are taking a state by state approach to advocate for fair maps, and we need supporters on the ground to make sure their voices are heard in the redistricting process so we can achieve fair maps, and put an end to map manipulation. You can sign up to say you stand with us, here: www.allontheline.org
Daniel Jones says
I understand that “Gerrymandering” is “bad”, because it manipulates Our Vote. Our Vote should not be manipulated and be allowed to present itself and stand, on its own arithmetic merits.
Somewhere in my adult Life I got lost about the necessity to establish political districts, in the first place. Then I become aware that the “districts” are “re-districting”…being shape changed to put one of the duopoly parties at an advantage over the other. I just don’t get it.
To me, a well designed state map has clear state lines and counties defined…along with commerce infra-structure and natural features. Going beyond these parameters for politicians seems unnecessary.
Why can’t Our Votes be counted county by county and that tallied to tell the “Truth of The Will Of The People”? What the hell do We need “Districts” for? I know, I am probably ignorant of a developmental detail that has brought this mess to pass. So…please educate me as to the necessity for political districts?
Meanwhile, I vote NO on “Gerrymandering” and “Districts”. WE don’t need either for a Good Democracy.
Dave R. says
I find it funny that the very people who complain against gerrymandering are the very ones who are benefited the most by gerrymandering. We can all agree that the tendency of the Democratic Party is to gather in large clusters in the cities, while Republicans tend to live in rural districts. If lines were drawn in perfect shapes ( squares, rectangles..) It would benefit the Republicans, because all Democratic voters would be lumped together in the cities. If you want to draw districts that are proportional to racial distribution, just look at Chicago. Whoops! Sorry I forgot that Barack Obama won his Senate seat using gerrymandered (which I contend is not wrong) lines.
Many people against gerrymandering also want proportional representation (whether ideological or racial). However, as this lady says, just because a majority of people (she definitely backs up her statement with clear cut facts) might agree on gun safety measures does not mean that they would agree on taxes or abortion. Consequently, you would have a government that would disagree on every small issue and get nothing done.
So… let’s just accept that gerrymandering, just like many other tools in politics, is a double-edged sword. It is used by both parties to accomplish their goals. Re-districting is actually a Constitutional requirement in most states to make sure that all districts have 70,000 voters in each district. (It varies from state to state)
And, I find it funny that Visick thinks gerrymandering is bad, because special-interest groups can control our government. Excuse me Visick, you are working for a special-interest group run by the attorney-general himself.
Steve Schneider says
This is a great post, Dave. R. And well written, too.
So, it may surprise you to know the following: Although I am a lifelong Democrat, I am not always pleased or in step with my party. Therefore, I have no problem agreeing with your basic point, which I believe is this: Life, like politics, ain’t perfect. We can only try to make things better, maybe only a little bit better, if we are lucky.
And that’s what I believe the gerrymander fight is really about. Yes, Dems do it. Of course, it is possible that Repubs do it better, with a variation on a theme called extreme gerrymandering. So, now that Dems are fighting back — image that, the supposedly weak-at-the-knees Dems are actually making an argument and putting up a fight — defenders of the status quo cry foul.
Cry all you want, and keep telling hypocritical Dems to look at themselves in the mirror. The January 6 crowd that has taken over the Republican Party may yet steal an election or two if Trump, DeSantis and the loyal MAGA band keep playing their sweet music.
Life ain’t perfect, Dave. I guess we will always be able to call one another out for one thing or another. After all, even an accomplished, powerful communication expert like Christina Pushaw strayed from her academic roots to pump out venom for her would-be president, the modern-day successor to her hero Ronald Reagan.
Cheers!
Dave R. says
Hey, Steve. Your side of the article is pretty well put together. Yes, sadly both Dems and Republicans are hypocrites. My problem with taking away gerrymandering is that there is simply no solution that would satisfy most people out there. Most people who want to take away gerrymandering offer no logical solution to stop it, except an answer that includes something about racial and ideological equality. Let’s face it. There is really no such thing as a non-partisan solution, because a fact of humans is that we all have bias’s. Who would be the people to come up with that solution? Show me a “non-partisan” person, and I will show you a liar.
By now, you can probably tell that I am a Republican :) The one part of your comment that I fundamentally have a problem with Steve, is when you go off about Jan. 6 and Trump and Desantis. Now, Steve, I am not talking personally about you, but tell me, isn’t it hypocrisy when Pelosi and Maxine Waters… make January 6th look like the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 (al-Qaeda would be insulted) yet, they supported the burning and looting of dozens of buildings across the U.S. To use their own words, that is what I consider an “assault on our democracy”? I take issue when people try to use Jan. 6th to justify their arguments by smearing the other side, a propoganda technique known as name-calling.
Now, I know Steve that you probably weren’t meaning it like that. You seem much smarter and logical. Back to subject, honestly, I would like to know your thoughts on a good solution about gerrymandering.
Siya!
Steve Schneider says
Hey David, R., as in Republican,
I am not an attorney. Nor am I a partisan political player, even though I have no problem declaring that I am a lifelong Democrat.
With that in mind, here is my attempt to answer your question about creating a more perfect gerrymandering union.
As a generalist, I believe ain’t no system gonna work perfectly. However, I’m much more comfortable letting “independent” commissions of mainstream folk draw political boundaries as opposed to obviously conflicted pols in state legislatures or governors mansions.
Let’s say this reform, or something approaching it, rises up in all 50 states. My bet is we’ll be back at Democracy Chronicles in 10 or 20 years either decrying the failed or flawed reform or endorsing a new and improved reform.
This insight kind of reminds me of the NFL meetings where owners decided to change the overtime rule in playoff games. Maybe the change is good. But thoughtful insiders at ESPN already suggest owners will be back in a few years trying their best to reform the reform.
Which gets me back to another general point of mine on gerrymandering. Our system of government is about checks and balances, among other things. That’s what we’re seeing happen now that Dems have apparently grown a spine. Good for them.