essays
A Gerrymandering Refresher
by Ben Sheehan
December 10, 2018
Ben Sheehan is the founder and Executive Director of OMGWTF.
What’s ‘gerrymandering’?
It’s the process of drawing U.S. House (Congressional) district lines or state legislative (state house or state senate) district lines to favor one political party over another.
Cool. I don’t understand what you wrote.
Remember how your U.S. Representative (Congressperson) represents your interests in the U.S. House, and your state representative represents your interests in your state house (sometimes called a state assembly), and your state senator represents your interests in your state senate?
…yes?
Each has their own ‘district’, or section of your state, for a specific area of residents. Some states have only one U.S. Representative because they’re so small (called ‘at large’).
So what’s gerrymandering then?
It’s the process of drawing district lines so that one party has an advantage (a.k.a. cheating). Every 10 years, your state representatives and state senators (your state legislators) assemble, review the U.S. Census data for your state, and redraw district lines for Congressional and state legislative districts. They do this because people move within the state, or to another state, or die, so by updating these lines every 10 years, the people in your state are fairly represented. Some states use independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions to draw their lines – but in most states, your state legislators draw them. People agree that districts should be drawn so that they’re competitive (where Democrats or Republicans could win).
But gerrymandering is the process of drawing districts to favor one party. For example, in 2012, Ohio Democratic U.S. House candidates and Ohio Republican U.S. House candidates split the vote almost evenly, but Republicans got 75% of U.S. House seats.
How is that possible?
Two ways. Let’s say that a state has 36 Congressional districts, and one part of the state has a lot of Democrats. If you want Republicans to win, you can draw the lines so Democrats are confined to a few districts, called ‘packing’, so the other districts have mostly Republicans. And if a state has 13 Congressional districts, and one area of the state is concentrated with Democrats, you can draw the lines to divide, or ‘crack’, Democrats into different districts so they’re always a numerical minority.
That’s fucked up.
Well, it gets worse. Sometimes when drawing districts, state legislators have been accused of using race to gerrymander. The idea is that because minorities – say Hispanics and African-Americans – usually vote for Democrats, if you draw the lines based on race, it will have a similar effect with minimizing Democratic votes.
Wow.
Also the examples I used? They’re real. Texas has 36 Congressional districts and a Federal Court said that it’s 35th Congressional district was unfairly drawn to ‘pack’ Hispanic voters. And North Carolina has 13 Congressional districts, and it’s 6th Congressional district – which touches Greensboro (which has a large African-American population) – was redrawn to ‘crack’ the area into multiple districts. These lines even run through North Carolina A&T’s campus, which is the largest historically black public university in the country. So, if you’re a student who moves from one side of the campus to the other, you have to re-register to vote.
Are you kidding? How is this legal?!
Some Federal Courts have said it isn’t, but the Supreme Court – on multiple occasions – has sent cases back to the states, refusing to make a federal law banning partisan gerrymandering. Even when lines seem to be drawn with race in mind, the argument is that the lines are disenfranchising Democrats, not minorities…but it’s kinda obvious what’s going on.
That’s insane. It’s Republicans who are doing this?
Republicans control the majority of state legislatures right now, so it’s happening more often in Republican-controlled states. It happens in Democratic states too (e.g. Maryland, Illinois); but currently Republicans are doing it way more. And it’s the Republican-controlled states that have districts accused of being racially gerrymandered. Needless to say, the racial component taps into an ugly history of voter disenfranchisement in this country.
How do we stop this?
Until there’s a federal law outlawing partisan gerrymandering, it’s up to each state to decide how it draws its lines. Some states have independent redistricting commissions drawing the lines (instead of state legislatures). This year in Michigan, voters passed a ballot measure giving line-drawing responsibilities to citizens rather than legislators. Also, in most states the governor can veto the lines, so some checks and balances exist.
But until we outlaw partisan gerrymandering nationally, or establish an independent redistricting commission in every state, or elect people who believe in fair lines, gerrymandering will continue.
What can I do?
In the next two elections (2019 and 2020), you can support state legislative and gubernatorial candidates who believe in fair lines. If there’s a ballot measure that would create an independent redistricting committee in your state, support that measure. Vote for these candidates and measures. Donate money to support them. Make calls, knock on doors, and convince others to do the same.
Because 2020 is your LAST chance to elect people who will draw fair lines in 2021. And remember, these lines won’t get drawn again until 2031.
Thanks, that was helpful (if long).
I feel the same about democracy.
essays
A Rising Sun
by Jay Winik
April 30, 2018
Jay Winik is a writer and one of the nations leading historians. He is currently the Historian In Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations.
In looking at the military today, we inevitably are drawn to history for context. To be sure, we live in uncertain, chaotic, and dangerous times. Abroad we have the looming specter of an increasingly belligerent Russia; of rogue regimes racing to develop a nuclear weapon, North Korea and Iran; we have the heart-wrenching sight of innocents dying a ghastly death from nerve gas in Syria. At home, we have a populist and controversial president, the two parties at each other's throats, and the fear by some that democracy itself is under assault, if not withering away or dying. We also have a government that at times appears paralyzed. And there is the axiom that a government stretched at home, will invariably have difficulty supporting the military abroad. On its face, this does not bode well.
Is America up to this challenge? Are the danger signs all around, not just for the military but the American people as a whole?
America has weathered daunting crises before. It has survived strong presidents and bad ones, tough times and good ones. It has survived the Shays rebellion, the French Revolution, and the burning of the US capitol; a great civil war that tore us asunder, taking some 620,000 lives, an incalculable number. It survived World War I and World War II, Hitler, Nazi-ism and the Third Reich; and the Great Depression. It survived the tumult of the Korean War and agony of Vietnam and racial strife; and too, 9/11 and the seeming quagmire of Iraq.
Throughout, America has flourished. It's a remarkable story. Democracy has been strong, and democracy has prevailed. In a sense, however, it has never been easy. Think of George Washington as commander-in-chief at the beginning of the Republic. Confronted with the French military juggernaut that threatened to turn its might on America, Washington could feel himself aging day-by-day, that is, when he wasn't angrily swearing up a storm in cabinet meetings. Consider Abraham Lincoln during the Battle of the Wilderness, months after the great turning point of the war at Gettysburg. His hands clasped behind his back, his head bowed, with boxer’s circles lining his eyes, he roamed the halls of the White House muttering over and over to himself, "I must have relief from this anxiety or it will kill me." It almost did. The Union lost some 52,000 soldiers in a mere six weeks during the Wilderness campaign, nearly as many as America lost during the entirety of the Vietnam War. Or consider Franklin Roosevelt who as commander-in-chief was so genial, so confident and composed, always stoical. Yet when called upon to take the phone in the second floor Oval Office when he was given an update on the beginning of the North Africa invasion, a prelude to D-Day, his hand was shaking he was so anxious. Nonetheless, General Marshall would later tell him, "the light of battle is in our troop’s eyes.”
With American military men and women fighting abroad for our safety, we feel democracy is safe.
Is it?
One is reminded here, of what Benjamin Franklin said at the close of the Constitutional Convention. He pointed to the President's chair, and wryly remarked, "I have often in the course of the session looked at the sun behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now I have the happiness to know it is a rising and not a setting sun."