Another Loss for Gerrymandering

[CharminTide]

Yesterday, a federal court found Texas' district map to be unconstitutional.

Texas statehouse districts drawn by the Republican-led legislature in 2011 intentionally diluted the votes of minorities, violating the U.S. Constitution and parts of the Voting Rights Act, a federal court ruled Thursday.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in San Antonio found that the maps gave Republicans an advantage in elections and weakened the voting strength of minority voters. House Districts in Dallas and Tarrant counties were among those in which the judges ruled minority voters had seen their clout weakened.

The ruling is yet another blow to the state in its six-year legal battle over the redrawing of the maps. Last month, the same court found that the state's congressional maps were drawn with intent to discriminate against minority voters and invalidated three congressional districts. And last week, a federal judge ruled that the state's voter ID law was written with intent to discriminate.

"The evidence of the mapdrawing process supports the conclusion that mapdrawers were motivated in part by an intent to dilute minority voting strength," U.S. District Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote in the 171-page ruling. "Discussions among mapdrawers demonstrated a hostility to creating any new minority districts as those were seen to be a loss of Republican seats, despite the massive minority population growth statewide."

This has happened in other states over the past 6 months. Wisconsin and North Carolina's district maps were also ruled unconstitutional in federal court. On the Democratic side, Maryland's maps are being challenged as well.

SCOTUS will rule on the Wisconsin case. NYT has a nice writeup on the situation.

The hand-to-hand political combat in House elections on Tuesday in Georgia and last week in Kansas had the feel of the first rounds of an epic battle next year for control of the House of Representatives and the direction of national politics as the Trump presidency unfolds.

But for all the zeal on the ground, none of it may matter as much as a case heading to the Supreme Court, one that could transform political maps from City Hall to Congress — often to Democrats’ benefit.

A bipartisan group of voting rights advocates says the lower house of the Wisconsin Legislature, the State Assembly, was gerrymandered by its Republican majority before the 2012 election — so artfully, in fact, that Democrats won a third fewer Assembly seats than Republicans despite prevailing in the popular vote. In November, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a panel of federal judges agreed.

Now the Wisconsin case is headed to a Supreme Court that has repeatedly said that extreme partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but has never found a way to decide which ones cross the line.

Will we finally get back to a system where voters choose their representatives, rather than representatives choosing their voters? If so, how do we draw these maps to ensure fair representation?

 

[Bamaro]

Yesterday, a federal court found Texas' district map to be unconstitutional.


This has happened in other states over the past 6 months. Wisconsin and North Carolina's district maps were also ruled unconstitutional in federal court. On the Democratic side, Maryland's maps are being challenged as well.

SCOTUS will rule on the Wisconsin case. NYT has a nice writeup on the situation.


Will we finally get back to a system where voters choose their representatives, rather than representatives choosing their voters? If so, how do we draw these maps to ensure fair representation?

Hopefully but I wont hold my breath.

 

[2003TIDE]

how do we draw these maps to ensure fair representation?

Already been solved

 

[CharminTide]

Already been solved

Yep, seen that. Seems better than politicians drawing the maps, but there will be plenty of resistance to letting an algorithm outline districts.

 

[Bamaro]

Already been solved

But we haven't solved the people/politician problem yet.

 

[Tidewater]

Yep, seen that. Seems better than politicians drawing the maps, but there will be plenty of resistance to letting an algorithm outline districts.

The USDOJ would inevitably object. One of the districts would be "not black enough" (or "not female enough," or "not hispanic enough," or "not left-handed enough," etc. etc. etc.)

 

[Bamaro]

The USDOJ would inevitably object. One of the districts would be "not black enough" (or "not female enough," or "not hispanic enough," or "not left-handed enough," etc. etc. etc.)

You may be right but redistricting should be like justice, blind.

 

[CajunCrimson]

You may be right but redistricting should be like justice, blind.

I don't know why they don't just split it up by county, equating population -- as much as possible. Most large cities are spread out over multiple counties. I'd be fine with that.

 

[bamachile]

The USDOJ would inevitably object. One of the districts would be "not black enough" (or "not female enough," or "not hispanic enough," or "not left-handed enough," etc. etc. etc.)

This gets into the heart of the problem nicely. If all districts have the same majority/minority ratios, minorities will end up with little to no representation. If districts are formed which maximize minority participation in one area of the state, it will cause dilution of minority participation in the remaining areas. It's a real conundrum for politicians of any persuasion.

I tentatively prefer the somewhat arbitrary method linked above. It would seem to make all sides equally unhappy.

 

[RedStar]

This gets into the heart of the problem nicely. If all districts have the same majority/minority ratios, minorities will end up with little to no representation. If districts are formed which maximize minority participation in one area of the state, it will cause dilution of minority participation in the remaining areas. It's a real conundrum for politicians of any persuasion.

I tentatively prefer the somewhat arbitrary method linked above. It would seem to make all sides equally unhappy.

I've actually had to help draw voting districts for a few municipalities and what you said is the biggest problem. (From my experience this is a another problem that crosses party lines.) You try to be as fair as possible and fair just doesn't exist, someone will always be excluded.

One of the cities I helped draw lines for had a council member (minority) who showed up at my office at least once a day leading up to the ratifying of the districts. He would look over my shoulder to help me draw lines. The end result was looked like a Jackson Pollock painting. The only way to connect minority pockets inside the city was to draw the most ludicrous looking district possible. The DOJ continuously shot it down because it was so absurd. The final result wasn't what he wanted but he still ended up getting elected anyway.

Until or unless like-minded people live in large sections of the same region, gerrymandering is almost a necessary evil for underrepresented populations.

 

[Tide1986]

You may be right but redistricting should be like justice, blind.

Even when processes are "blind", the theory of disparate impact rears its ugly head.

 

[CharminTide]

The Fair Representation Act is another interesting House reform proposal. It basically eliminates the rule under which a single person represents an entire district, and instead allows multiple representatives to be chosen proportionally by the voters in said district. It reduces the number of districts, but doesn't change the number of House members. It eliminates the winner-take-all system in lieu of proportional representation that more closely resembles the actual voter makeup of a given district. Here's an in-depth explainer article.

Of course, since it would Congress to change current law limiting one representative to each single district, it would have an uphill battle.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The Fair Representation Act is another interesting House reform proposal. It basically eliminates the rule under which a single person represents an entire district, and instead allows multiple representatives to be chosen proportionally by the voters in said district. It reduces the number of districts, but doesn't change the number of House members. It eliminates the winner-take-all system in lieu of proportional representation that more closely resembles the actual voter makeup of a given district. Here's an in-depth explainer article.

Of course, since it would Congress to change current law limiting one representative to each single district, it would have an uphill battle.

That's an understatement. A bunch of them would, in effect, be voting themselves out of office...

 

[CharminTide]

That's an understatement. A bunch of them would, in effect, be voting themselves out of office...

I think that'll be true with any degree of meaningful reform, and like you, I doubt we can rely on Congress to vote against their own self-interest. I'm afraid there will be no change without the courts getting involved.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

John Oliver had a segment on gerrymandering recently, it was pretty good IMO.

EDIT: I decided to remove the link because of language. It's not that bad IMO but, probably still against site policy. Anyway, go to YouTube and search "Gerrymandering John Oliver".

 

[Crimson1967]

Oliver is pretty funny, but I think he is one of those who drops f-bombs in his routine just because he can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[92tide]

Oliver is pretty funny, but I think he is one of those who drops f-bombs in his routine just because he can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i imagine it is somewhat of a brit thing too. they have a way with colorful words

 

[CharminTide]

John Delaney has proposed an interesting bill that seeks to end gerrymandering and reform elections. LINK

The Open Our Democracy Act has a very simple goal – to make the House of Representatives truly representative. Gerrymandering, low voter turnout and a broken primary system have warped Congress and encouraged extreme partisanship that is hurting the country and blocking smart legislation. Right now, in too many districts, the only election that matters is the party primary and that means a small and disproportionately partisan percentage of the population has an outsized influence on Congress. The American people are deeply frustrated because they can see that Congress just doesn’t reflect the country’s priorities. The Open Our Democracy Act ends partisan gerrymandering nationwide, helps more people vote by making Election Day a holiday and creates open top-two primaries. This is a comprehensive reform bill to ensure that the districts are fair and that all voters are heard.

The bill has three parts:

1. Requires states use independent commissions for congressional redistricting, to prevent partisan influence.
2. Makes Election Day a federal holiday.
3. Creates open and top-two primaries for House and Senate elections. This allows Independents and non-affiliated voters to participate in primaries. A top-two primary system is one in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on a single primary ballot. This ballot is open to all voters. The top two candidates from the primary then advance to the general election.

 

[Tide1986]

John Delaney has proposed an interesting bill that seeks to end gerrymandering and reform elections. LINK



The bill has three parts:

1. Requires states use independent commissions for congressional redistricting, to prevent partisan influence.
2. Makes Election Day a federal holiday.
3. Creates open and top-two primaries for House and Senate elections. This allows Independents and non-affiliated voters to participate in primaries. A top-two primary system is one in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on a single primary ballot. This ballot is open to all voters. The top two candidates from the primary then advance to the general election.

I'm not sure there is a constitutional basis for the federal government to legitimately enforce #1.

Not sure that I like a top-two primary system. Seems preferable to adopt a primary system in which each voter can vote for his top choice in each party and all party winners then appear on the final ballot. Nevertheless, I'm not sure there is a constitutional basis for the federal government to legitimately enforce such a requirement on the States. Nevertheless, California Democrat Party v. Jones seems to be a limiter on reforming the primary system.

 

[CharminTide]

I'm not sure there is a constitutional basis for the federal government to legitimately enforce #1.

Not sure that I like a top-two primary system. Seems preferable to adopt a primary system in which each voter can vote for his top choice in each party and all party winners then appear on the final ballot. Nevertheless, I'm not sure there is a constitutional basis for the federal government to legitimately enforce such a requirement on the States. Nevertheless, California Democrat Party v. Jones seem to be a limiter on reforming the primary system.

I'm also curious whether such reform can be legally done by federal law.

I like the open primary and top-two system, actually. A state like Alabama would certainly get two Republican choices, for instance. But then they would have to fight over the Democrats and more centrist Republicans voters during the election, which may select less solidly partisan candidates than the current system. The voices of the minority party would matter more than they do in our current system, I think, which may give more balanced and less polarized representatives.