End Gerrymandering & Draw Fair Congressional Districting Maps

By Joe Marzo

An Overview of the Current System

Introduction

The process of drawing congressional district maps, known as redistricting, is crucial to the functioning of democracy in the United States. This process, happening every ten years after the national census, ensures that electoral districts reflect changes in population and demographics. However, the current system is plagued by gerrymandering, which undermines fair representation and leads to numerous political and social issues. By looking at how states like California and Michigan handle redistricting, we can imagine a fairer approach that could be adopted nationwide to make races more competitive and reduce the influence of career politicians in Congress.

The Process

Redistricting occurs every ten years after the national census. It involves redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts to ensure each district has roughly equal population, reflecting demographic shifts. The responsibility for redistricting varies by state but typically falls into one of three categories:

State Legislature: In 30 states, the state legislature is responsible for drawing the district maps. These maps must be approved by a majority vote in the legislature and often require the governor's signature.

Independent Commissions: Nine states use independent or bipartisan commissions to draw the maps, aiming to reduce partisan influence.

Hybrid Systems: Eleven states use a combination of legislative and commission-based approaches.

Problems with the Current System

The primary issue with the current system is gerrymandering, where the party in control manipulates district boundaries to create an electoral advantage. Gerrymandering can be done in two main ways:

1. Cracking: Diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts to prevent them from achieving a majority in any of them.

2. Packing: Concentrating the opposing party's voters into a few districts to reduce their influence in other districts.

These practices lead to several problems:

• Lack of Competitive Races: Gerrymandering often results in "safe" districts where one party is heavily favored, reducing the competitiveness of elections.

• Polarization: Safe districts can lead to the election of more extreme candidates, contributing to political polarization.

• Voter Disenfranchisement: Gerrymandering can diminish the impact of certain voters' ballots, undermining the principle of equal representation.
  

Case Studies: California and Michigan

California

California uses an independent redistricting commission established by voter initiative through Proposition 11 in 2008 and expanded by Proposition 20 in 2010. The commission consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four who are unaffiliated with either party. The commission is responsible for drawing district lines for the state's Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts. Key features include:

• Transparency: The commission operates with a high degree of transparency, holding public meetings and allowing for public input.

• Criteria: Districts must be contiguous, respect the geographic integrity of localities, and be drawn to encourage fair representation.

• Independence: Members are selected through a rigorous application process to ensure impartiality.

Michigan

In 2018, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, which created an independent citizens redistricting commission. The commission is composed of 13 members: four affiliated with the Democratic Party, four affiliated with the Republican Party, and five independents. Key features include:

• Random Selection: Members are randomly selected from a pool of applicants, ensuring a nonpartisan composition.

• Public Involvement: The commission must hold at least 10 public hearings before drafting maps and another five after releasing the proposed maps.

• Strict Criteria: Districts must be contiguous, respect communities of interest, and not favor or disfavor any political party or incumbent.

Criticisms

While both systems have been praised for their independence and transparency, they have faced some criticisms. California's process has been critiqued for its complexity and occasional legal challenges, while Michigan's system has encountered implementation issues and partisan tensions despite the balanced composition of its commission.

A Path Forward:

Nationwide Adoption of Independent Redistricting Commissions

California and Michigan were chosen as case studies because their redistricting processes are led by citizens themselves, ensuring that the power to shape electoral districts is placed directly in the hands of the people rather than partisan legislators. This citizen-led approach is crucial for fostering trust and transparency in the redistricting process.

To create more competitive races across the United States and reduce the prevalence of career politicians in Congress, all states should adopt a system similar to those in California and Michigan. The benefits include:

Enhanced Fairness: Independent commissions reduce partisan manipulation, ensuring fairer representation.

Increased Competitiveness: More competitive districts encourage candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, promoting moderate and pragmatic policy positions.

Voter Confidence: Transparent processes and public involvement increase trust in the electoral system.

Reduced Polarization: Fairer districts can lead to the election of candidates who are more representative of the general population, reducing political extremes.

Conclusion

Gerrymandering undermines the democratic principles upon which the United States was founded. By adopting independent redistricting commissions nationwide, as exemplified by California and Michigan, we can foster a more equitable electoral process. This approach would not only enhance the competitiveness of elections and reduce political polarization but also restore voter confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. It's time for a nationwide reform that prioritizes fair representation and strengthens the foundation of American democracy.