U.S. House of Representative districts are apportioned and drawn so that, with the exception of sparsely populated states with only one House seat, each House district represents approximately the same number of constituents. Similarly, each state apportions their respective legislative districts such that each respective district within the state contains approximately the same number of constituents.
Every 10 years, Congressional and state legislative districts are reapportioned, based on the decennial U.S. Census. States gaining population relative to others may gain congressional seats at the expense of states that lose population, or gain at a lesser pace than rapidly growing states such as Florida and Texas.
Similarly, state legislative districts are reapportioned to adjust for population shifts. In addition, states are responsible for drawing the congressional district boundaries within their respective state.
That’s all perfectly fitting and proper. But what is not fitting and proper in most states is the process by which these state legislative and congressional districts are drawn — and the rationale for that process. This is where partisan gerrymandering comes in. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of the boundaries of an electoral constituency in order to favor a party or class. The word derives from an early 19th century Massachusetts Governor, Elbridge Gerry, plus the word “salamander” represented by the contorted shape of a voting district designed to favor a party.
Gerrymandering ignores logical county and municipal boundaries, increases the number of safe seats for both parties, with bias toward the party in power; reduces the incentive of lawmakers to listen to minority party constituents; and greatly reduces the incentive of lawmakers to work across party lines, thereby significantly increasing partisanship.
Here’s how that divisive process works. When district lines are redrawn, the majority party uses a combination of packing and spreading. They pack opposition party voters into as few districts as possible, while spreading the majority party voters across a larger number of districts, thus maximizing the number of seats retained by the majority.
Modern computer technology combined with detailed data on voting history enables numerous possible combinations and iterations, enabling majority party lawmakers to select the most desirable result for their party. Packing the minority party into the fewest districts provides a few safe seats for the minority party but maximizes a larger number of safe seats for the majority party, thereby maximizing the probability that the majority party will remain the majority party. This maximizes the power of incumbency — the probability of those in power to remain in power.
The increased number of safe seats, and concomitant reduction in competitive seats, has obvious consequences. If a seat is safe, the lawmaker has less incentive to reach out and listen to constituents, especially to those of the opposing party. This diminishes the incentive of lawmakers of either party to work with lawmakers of the other. Rather than engage in the compromise and “give and take” to accomplish difficult legislative tasks, lawmakers can remain in power by playing to those voters selected for their districts.
Along the same lines, citizen participation is diminished. In districts with safe seats, majority party voters don’t worry that their representative will lose, and minority party voters are discouraged from participation.
Results of gerrymandering are illustrated by our own state of Wisconsin, and Green County. There are approximately equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in Wisconsin. But the State Assembly is Republican by approximately a two to one ratio. During some years, such as 2012, even with more votes for Assembly Democrats statewide, Republicans win more seats because of the packing and spreading process.
Even with a more non-partisan process, because Democrats are concentrated in Milwaukee, Madison, and college towns such Platteville, La Crosse, and Eau Claire, Republicans may well garner a legislative majority. But it would be nowhere near the overwhelming majority that the Republican legislature enjoys now. And importantly, there would be far more competitive seats than there are now.
Green County has an approximately equal number of Democratic and Republican voters. Prior to 2010 redistricting, Green County was wholly contained within the old 80th Assembly District, with the city of Monroe as its geographic and demographic center. With redistricting, blatant Republican gerrymandering, Green County has been split such that parts of it are on the fringes of three different assembly districts. Monroe, the district’s largest city, is now on the southeastern edge of the new 51st district that extends west and all the way north to Sauk County. The more Democratic northern portion of Green county has been split off into a suburban Madison district that was already mainly Democratic—an example of the “packing” process.
It would appear that since Wisconsin Republican legislators have benefited from gerrymandering, and Republicans retain the power to prevent reform, there is no solution. However, one must distinguish between Republican legislators and rank-and-file Republicans. A recent Marquette University poll reveals that 72 percent of Wisconsin voters would prefer redistricting by a non-partisan commission. This includes 63 percent of Republicans — rank-and-file Republicans, as opposed to Republican law makers. In fairness, we should note that southwest Green County’s Republican Assemblyman, Todd Novak, is among the few Republican legislators supporting reform.
With the election of Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, the power of the Republican legislature to gerrymander based on the 2020 census will be somewhat tempered, the degree to which remains to be seen. This is in contrast to the very conservative legislature combined with the ultra-conservative former Governor Walker who was in power for the 2010 reapportionment.
The partisan gerrymandering, aided by modern computer technology, has been so extreme that several states have challenged it in court. Some cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. While gerrymandering can favor either Republicans or Democrats, depending on who holds power, Republicans have recently benefitted in most states and in the Congress. Consequently, it required no nail-biting to anticipate that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court sees no problem with political gerrymandering.
Next Week: The Courts, gerrymandering, and solution.
— John Waelti of Monroe, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
