Limiting Gerrymandering

How Governors Can Stop The Disenfranchisement of Their Voters by Empowering the Fair-mappers over the Map-riggers

Original Woodblocks for Printing and Cartoon, The Gerry-Mander,” Boston Gazette, March 26, 1812, attributed to Elkanah Tisdal

The latest headlines proclaim that Democrats in Virginia may have outmaneuvered Republicans in Texas, Ohio, and elsewhere by “gerrymandering” Congressional boundaries for upcoming elections. The shared goal: to tilt the next House of Representatives election toward one party. In Virginia, for instance, the vote in the next Congressional election might split 55 percent to 45 percent between the two parties; however, Democrats might still win more than 90 percent of the seats. Thus, they might win 10 rather than 6 of the 11 Congressional seats they now hold.

Mind you, the term “gerrymander” came from a Boston Gazette newspaper report on the signing by Governor Gerry of Massachusetts of a redistricting bill that contained a district that looked like a “salamander.”

So, here we have it. Governors in several U.S. states proudly proclaim to their party faithful that “I have effectively disenfranchised large portions of voters in my own state to favor you, my own party members…er, I mean, the nation.” I suggest they have indirectly disenfranchised voters in other states as well. But there is a way out of this mess.

Let’s be clear. The Democrats in Virginia and California feel they were merely responding to Republican gerrymandering efforts, promoted by President Trump, in Texas and elsewhere. “If you can play dirty,” so to speak, “so can we.” Moreover, the timing of these map-rigging efforts by Democrats and Republicans alike is outside the traditional process, established by the Constitution, for redrawing boundaries every ten years after completion of the Census, when the number of seats in each state might change.

Whatever the validity of claims of parity or equity, both parties are engaged in a negative-sum game in which the nation loses. Period. And the losses are likely to increase over time and across states.

Where are the statespersons and civic leaders who might figure out how to promote an alternative? Wouldn’t it be better for a politician to brag about preventing a duel rather than winning one that left both parties wounded? Wouldn’t it be better to be known for favoring the fair-mappers over the map-riggers?

The solution is not as difficult as it might at first appear. The problem doesn’t really fit the conditions of a “classic prisoner’s dilemma.” Without going into detail, that dilemma assumes conditions under which one is always better off screwing another party or taking advantage of the other’s goodwill, because each can sneak off and, unbeknownst to the other, betray any potential or real mutual bargain they could make. In today’s gerrymandering situation, however, it is clear immediately what the other party is doing. The more appropriate analogy, therefore, is closer to one of assured mutual destruction. Though not a pretty situation, the threat of immediate reprisal often keeps the peace. Think about it, however: our politicians, instead, have voted for mutual destruction.

Here’s what I would do if I were a Governor and truly sought a more democratic nation. I would approach governors in other states and propose a pact: “Let’s sit down and agree to adopt a common bipartisan (or, ideally, nonpartisan) set of redistricting rules and procedures that pull the nation out of this mess and prevent voter disenfranchisement in my state and yours.” Ideally, the effort would be universal, but that is not required. Governor Newsom (D., CA) could call out Governor Abbott (R., TX) and make a two-way bargain. Governor Dewine (R., OH) could challenge Governor Spanberger (D., VA). And, yes, it won’t be perfect, but it will be a lot better than more salamanders.

In fact, they could and should try to extend the pact beyond the current situation and into the decennial redrawing of boundaries.

Among the winners, by the way, would be many voters throughout the country, not just in their own state. Consider the many Republican voters in Indiana who joined Democrats in rejecting an effort by Republican legislators there to redraw the boundaries. If you, like those Indiana Republican voters, align with a party in power in any state that still adheres to a more non- or bipartisan approach to drawing boundaries, you, too, are being played like a sucker. When those map-rigging states gain power, your state loses relative power by playing fair. Does your Governor stand up for your own rights and protest how you have been disenfranchised? I suggest you ask them.

Hey, if I were considering running for President or had other higher aspirations—I’m looking at you, Governors Newsome and Abbott—I would run as fast as possible to be the first to put forward such a challenge. The public is desperate for candidates who can occasionally put forward and achieve principled, nonpartisan goals.

Who knows? Perhaps a successful effort here could set a precedent for a bit more bipartisanship, something required at some level if Democrats win a majority of seats in at least one House of Congress at the end of this year.