Why I Keep Harping On Gerrymandering

I’m sure many of you are getting tired of my repeated posts about gerrymandering. Sorry, but it’s important to detail all the various, terrible effects of this practice. (I can promise you that, if and when the Democrats retake control of the federal government and pass the John Lewis Act–which would outlaw gerrymandering among other desperately needed reforms–you will get a reprieve.)

In most of my past posts on the subject, I’ve detailed numerous negative results of the practice. Gerrymandering is the antithesis of democracy, because it allows representatives to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. It suppresses the votes of whichever party is the “loser” in that state. It increases political polarization by turning primaries  into the actual elections, virtually ensuring that Republicans will move to protect their right flank and Democrats their left. Etc.

What those past posts haven’t adequately described, however, is how the practice of partisan redistricting affects the legislative performance of those who owe their positions to the practice.

In one of his daily letters, Robert Hubbell provided an excellent example: he focused on a California Congressman named Kevin Kiley. Kiley represents one of the districts that was targeted by California’s mid-decade redistricting. When that redistricting occurred, he found himself left with a district that is no longer safe for the GOP. And suddenly, Hubbell reports, “he has found the courage to stand up to Trump.” Hubbell also notes that Don Bacon, who represents a competitive Nebraska district, frequently breaks with Trump. As he observes, “Funny how representing a competitive district gives Republicans the backbone to stand up to Trump.”

It isn’t just Washington.

Indianapolis Star columnist James Briggs recently pointed to the effects of gerrymandering on the Indiana legislature, where Republicans from safe districts that they’ve drawn revel in their super-majority and have become increasingly arrogant and entitled. As Briggs notes, the Republican House speaker, Todd Huston, controls what happens at the Indiana Statehouse. “Want to pass a bill? You need Huston. Want to stop a bad bill? Good luck without him.”

And how does an “entitled” Speaker perform?

Briggs reports on a recent, particularly egregious example. During the current session, Democrat Mitch Gore sponsored a bill that would have kept state officials from using taxpayer money to buy luxury cars (think Secretary of State Diego Morales’ GMC Yukon Denali and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith’s $90,000 SUV.) The bill had passed out of committee unanimously and was ready for a floor vote. 

But Gore had evidently used his social media account to mock the Republicans who’d bought those luxury vehicles with Hoosiers’ tax dollars. As Briggs points out, the posts were well within “fair game” political territory–but Huston was evidently offended. He refused to bring the measure–which had substantial bipartisan support– to the floor for a vote.

So a good bill died.

As Briggs notes, this wasn’t the first time that Huston felt safe in jettisoning a bill for petty partisan reasons. As he writes, “Ideally, the Indiana House speaker would not be that petty. But if he is, that’s his prerogative, and Indiana Democrats need to figure out how to deal with a Statehouse kingpin who can strike them down at any time, for any reason.”

What Briggs (accurately) calls “pettiness” at the state level, is mirrored by what frustrated citizens call spinelessness at the federal level. These behaviors are all enabled by partisan redistricting–by gerrymandering. Representatives who believe they don’t have to worry about the approval or disapproval of their constituents feel free to ignore the common good in favor of  perceived personal political advantage, or just pique. They are less likely to hold town halls, or take the opportunity to find out what the folks they (theoretically) represent really think or want, and far–far–more likely to toe extremist partisan lines.

Good bills get deep-sixed. “Oversight” of corruption is limited to examination of members of the other party (see James Comer and the Epstein files.)

Without competition, good government takes a back seat to “what’s in it for me.” As Independent Indiana insists, competitive elections lead to better leaders and a stronger state.

The current crisis in America isn’t simply the result of electing terrible people. It’s a result of a practice–partisan redistricting aka gerrymandering– that virtually guarantees that terrible people will be the ones deciding who gets elected. You can call that systemic flaw many things, but democratic isn’t one of them.