Okay–better late than never…
Media has reported on the effort being mounted in Texas to re-gerrymander that state’s already-extreme gerrymander, in an effort to add five Republican seats, and potentially save the House for the GOP.
One of the things that national polling misses is the fact that a political party can win the national vote by millions, but thanks to our structure–elements like the Senate’s disproportionate representation and the Electoral College–the party garnering a minority of the vote can win control of Congress and the Presidency.
I’ve written a lot over the years about the pernicious effects of gerrymandering, and lest memories of those diatribes have faded, I’m going all the way back to 2001. This is what I wrote on May 1st of that year.
The Indiana General Assembly is preparing to embark upon what individual legislators call redistricting, and what the rest of us call gerrymandering. It will be an intensely partisan endeavor.
The goal of this exercise is to draw as many “safe” seats as possible—more for the party in charge, of course, but also for the minority party, because in order to retain control, the majority needs to cram as many of the minority into as few districts as possible. While gerrymandering is nothing new, the advent of computers has made the process efficient beyond the wildest dreams of Elbridge Gerry, the former Vice-President for whom it is named.
In gerrymandering, neighborhoods, cities, towns, townships—even precincts—are broken up to meet the political needs of mapmakers. Numbers are what drive the results—not compactness of districts, not communities of interest, and certainly not competitiveness.
Safe districts undermine the democratic process.
- If one is guaranteed victory, it is easy to become lazy and arrogant, safe to scuttle popular measures without fear of retribution.
- Lack of competitiveness can make it impossible to trace campaign contributions. When the folks with “Family Friendly Libraries” send a check to Representative Censor, who is unopposed, he then sends it to Senator MeToo, who is in a hot race. Senator MeToo’s campaign report shows only a contribution from Rep. Censor.
- Lack of competitiveness breeds voter apathy. Why get involved when the result is foreordained? Why donate to a sure loser? For that matter, unless you are trying to buy political influence, why donate to a sure winner? Why volunteer or vote, when those efforts won’t affect the results? It’s not only voters who lack incentives for participation, either; it’s not easy to recruit credible candidates to run on the “sure loser” ticket. The result is that in many of these races, voters have a choice between the anointed and the annoying—marginal candidates who offer no new ideas, no energy, and no challenge. Pundits describe voter apathy as if it were a moral deficiency; I suggest it is instead a rational response to noncompetitive politics. (Watch those “apathetic” folks fight an unpopular rezoning!) Reasonable people save their efforts for places where those efforts matter. Thanks to the proliferation of safe seats, those places may not include the voting booth.
- Gerrymandering exacerbates political polarization and gridlock. In competitive districts, nominees know they have to run to the middle to win in the fall. When the primary is, in effect, the general election, the battle takes place among the party faithful, who tend to be much more ideological. Republican incumbents will be challenged from the Right and Democratic incumbents from the Left. Even where those challenges fail, they are a powerful incentive for the incumbent to protect his flank. So we elect nominees beholden to the political extremes, who are unwilling or unable to compromise.
Of the 150 members of our current legislature, 73 were unopposed in 1998. Most of the others had only token opposition.
Is this any way to run a representative democracy?
The assault on democracy has been going on for longer than we recognize. And it isn’t just Texas.
Indiana’s gerrymandering has rendered a State House of Representatives with a two-to-one majority by one party. Our State Senate is even worse with a four-to-one majority by one party. These uncompetitive majorities make it easy for incumbents in ‘safe’ seats to ignore voters in their areas. Insulated arrogance is the result.
I remember the days, I got out of school on an Election Day to walk my grandmother to her pole, (she was an active and proud Democrat) and she would hug everyone there, on both sides of the aisle, as they were neighbors and friends. They liked and respected each other. For years, she was a full time babysitter,(today she would be called a nanny)for Char and Mayor Lugar. She very much helped the 4 Lugar boys grow up. Our different parties liked and respected each other. My dream, at age 75, is to get back to that environment.
VP Kamala Harris was right about the system being broken, but she got it wrong about when the break occurred. It’s been broken for a long, long time.
You must be feeling better! Or you just couldn’t let this one go. I’m glad you chose to hold forth on it.
Gerrymandering is an assault on what we say we value, that the voice of the people matters…. And more, as you say, “it undermines neighborhoods, cities, towns, townships—even precincts,” breaking up critical places, communities of connection, in order “to meet the political needs of mapmakers;” power seekers.
The hell with anything else, evidently, as staying in power or, better yet, adding to that power is all that counts, And so do the ends and the means become one. And that’s not good for American democracy. Of course, Texas wants to lead the way to its destruction. Quite the distinction!
Dennis – Amen!
The same computers that have enabled extreme gerrymandering are also the solution to the problem. It is just a matter of programming. The new rules:
1. Draw the shortest possible perimeters to contain the prescribed number of citizens; i.e, Total State population divided by the number of districts.
2. Only allowed adjustments to these minimal perimeters: that no person shall be required to cross a perimeter in order to reach his polling place.
3. Absolutely no consideration allowed of political party affiliations!
I would be willing to bet my meager fortune that if this change were allowed on the Indiana Ballot, it would win overwhelmingly. My guess: by a 3 to 1 margin.
What is preventing California and New York (or any blue state) to re-gerrymander their districts as repraisal?
I imagine California alone could easily gain more than 5 Democratic House seats. And they can do it out in the open just like Texas.
What’s good for the goose …
During the Indiana “redistricting” hearings, one Republican business owner said that Republican gerrymandering was bad for him too because with no need to respond to constituents, Republican lawmakers had no reason to even answer his calls. Gerrymandering in bad for everyone, except the wealthy who have bought the races.
Representative democracy? Ha!
SomeDutchGuy, Newsome and Hochul are talking about doing just that!
This article says that Indiana, and other red states, are also being encouraged to redistrict to gain more R seats in the House. Indianapolis will be one of the targets. That makes it personal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/us/politics/texas-redistricting-democrats-republicans-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU8.0J29.eBlmnk6mTNbo&smid=url-share
In the event the dems do win both houses they MUST get it together before the session opens. We’ll need to fix a host of problems as quickly as possible
As a side note, it was just a couple decades ago that we had like 60 Democrats in the Indiana House. That was because Indiana Democrats had effectively gerrymandered the Indiana House maps. Both parties gerrymander.
Having said that, there are limits to gerrymandering. Basically, it works like this. If you are in the majority, you create as many 60-40 seats as possible, while you make the districts won by the minority 80-20. This allows you to effectively maximize districts won the majority party with enough cushion to survive during years when there is a downturn in the majority vote. So those districts where the majority party is winning will be won by 10 points instead of 20 during a downturn. But when you cut the winning margin from 60 to 55 to win even more districts for the majority party, when the downturn inevitably comes. the majority party loses a whole slew of seats they would have never lost under the previous plan. Plus, it makes general elections more competitive and expensive when the districts are 55-45 as opposed to 60-40. 2026 is destined to be a bad year for Republicans. The TX redistricting plan might end up backfiring big time.