Tag Archives: gerrymandering

Why Democracy Is At Risk

The punditry keeps telling us that democracy is at risk. There’s a reason why that is.

Yes, Donald J. Trump (aka “the former guy”) poses an existential risk to American democracy. But let’s be honest– crazy Donald and Project 2025 are only threats because of the actual, underlying reason for the erosion of our democratic processes: the systemic distortions that continue to promote minority rule.

I have used this platform to pontificate about several of those distortions, from the Electoral College (hugely undemocratic) to the current form of the filibuster (significantly undemocratic), but especially (and yes, repeatedly) gerrymandering.

In one of Heather Cox Richardson’s recent Letters from an American, she explained more eloquently than I have the degree to which partisan redistricting–aka gerrymandering–mutes the voice of the electorate. As a result, I’m quoting her explanation at length.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this election is stark, and it reflects a systemic problem that has been growing in the U.S. since the 1980s.

Democracy depends on at least two healthy political parties that can compete for voters on a level playing field. Although the men who wrote the Constitution hated the idea of political parties, they quickly figured out that parties tie voters to the mechanics of Congress and the presidency.

And they do far more than that. Before political thinkers legitimized the idea of political opposition to the king, disagreeing with the person in charge usually led to execution or banishment for treason. Parties allowed for the idea of loyal and legitimate opposition, which in turn allowed for the peaceful transition of power. That peaceful exchange enabled the people to choose their leaders and leaders to relinquish power safely. Parties also create a system for criticizing people in power, which helps to weed out corrupt or unfit leaders.

But those benefits of a party system depend on a level political playing field for everyone, so that a party must constantly compete for voters by testing which policies are most popular and getting rid of the corrupt or unstable leaders voters would reject.

In the 1980s, radical Republican leaders set out to dismantle the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. But that system was popular, and to overcome the majority who favored it, they began to tip the political playing field in their direction…. By the 1990s, extremists in the party were taking power by purging traditional Republicans from it.

And yet, voters still elected Democrats, and after they put President Barack Obama into the White House in 2008, the Republican State Leadership Committee in 2010 launched Operation REDMAP, or Redistricting Majority Project. The plan was to take over state legislatures so Republicans would control the new district maps drawn after the 2010 census, especially in swing states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It worked, and Republican legislatures in those states and elsewhere carved up state maps into dramatically gerrymandered districts.

In those districts, the Republican candidates were virtually guaranteed election, so they focused not on attracting voters with popular policies but on amplifying increasingly extreme talking points to excite the party’s base. That drove the party farther and farther to the right. By 2012, political scientists Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned that the Republican Party had “become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

At the same time, the skewed playing field meant that candidates who were corrupt or bonkers did not get removed from the political mix after opponents pounced on their misdeeds and misstatements, as they would have been in a healthy system.

There is much more, and I encourage you to click through and read Richardson’s letter in its entirety–or, for that matter, if you are not now a subscriber, to become one. As a historian, she provides an illuminating historical context to the problems we face.

One of those problems is that, in a democracy, many voters–perhaps most—fail to recognize the immense importance of the systems within which We the People operate. Only when those systems operate to facilitate fair play and to provide a level playing field are the people we elect incentivized to heed the will of their constituents.

Richardson says there are two possible outcomes to today’s corrupted system: the election of Republicans who will follow the Project 2025 playbook, or a voters’ revolt sufficient to dislodge its beneficiaries and prompt reform of the cult that has replaced the GOP.

In November, we’ll know which of those outcomes we’ve chosen.

Comments

Connecting The Dots

A few evenings ago, I introduced a Zoom meeting sponsored by ReCenter Indiana. It was focused upon the very negative effects of our legislative super-majority. Democrats have identified four districts in Indiana that–should they all go Blue in November–would reduce the current super-majority to a simple majority. My job was to begin the session with an explanation of how a legislative super-majority advances extremism and stifles democratic deliberation.

Here are those introductory remarks.

__________________

Let me begin this discussion by connecting some dots. Hoosier voters need to understand how partisan redistricting—usually referred to as gerrymandering–has given Indiana its legislative super-majority, and how that super-majority has given us increasingly extreme legislation: a virtually-complete abortion ban, education vouchers that are starving our public schools, gun laws that allow anyone who can fog a mirror to possess a lethal weapon– basically, a focus on culture war at the expense of attention to actual governance.

It’s a vicious circle, because in Indiana, the GOP’s legislative super-majority also allows the party to continue the extreme gerrymandering that has made Indiana one of the five most gerrymandered states in the country.

Gerrymandering has all sorts of undemocratic consequences, one of which is voter suppression. In districts perceived as “safe,” people who favor the “loser” party tend to stay home. That’s one reason why Indiana ranks 50th among the states in turnout. (Interestingly, due to Indiana’s population shifts, a number of those theoretically “safe” districts wouldn’t currently be safe if discouraged folks came out and voted. Those demographic shifts are one of the reasons there’s a chance this year to break the current GOP supermajority.)

Indiana is an excellent example of how the gerrymandering that leads to legislative super-majorities has a profound and very negative impact on policy.

We know that primaries attract the most ideologically extreme voters in either party. When the primary is, in effect, the general election, Republican incumbents protect their right flank, Democrats their left. In Indiana, which has been gerrymandered to produce more Republican districts, that reality has steadily moved us farther and farther Right. Today’s “culture warriors” win office in order to focus on issues like banning abortion, waging war on trans children, and removing common-sense restrictions on gun ownership. And it’s getting worse–there are indications that during the next session we’ll see the introduction of anti-vaccine measures that—if passed–would threaten public health. (For reasons I fail to understand, opposition to vaccination has become a preoccupation of what I’ll call the “Micah Beckwith wing” of the GOP.)

These are the pet issues of extremists, rather than the issues that most Hoosiers care about and that we traditionally consider governmental: roads and bridges and other infrastructure, crime and punishment, economic development.

Thanks to the gerrymandering that has given Republicans a super-majority, these extremist legislators face virtually no barriers to enacting measures that research tells us are deeply unpopular with most Hoosiers. Members of a super-majority don’t face pressure to negotiate, or to moderate the most extreme versions of their extreme positions.

A party with a super-majority also faces no obstacles to rewarding its donors and supporters; in Indiana, that has given us policies that almost uniformly favor the well-to-do. It has defeated even the most minimal efforts to protect renters. It has given us privatization programs like vouchers, in which our tax dollars are used almost exclusively by the well-to-do while impoverishing the public schools that serve poorer children, and it has given us what is arguably an unconstitutional effort to protect gun manufacturers from litigation.

That super-majority has also blocked more stringent ethics measures.

Any super-majority—Republican or Democrat—gives those in power the ability to ignore contending arguments, unpalatable data and the needs of Hoosiers likely to vote for the opposing party. They don’t need to negotiate or compromise. They don’t even need to look like they’re negotiating or compromising.

Indiana can’t get rid of the gerrymandering that makes our legislature’s extremism possible—we lack a referendum or initiative, mechanisms that have been used by other states to institute nonpartisan redistricting. In this state, only the legislature itself—only the people who benefit from the system—can change it. The only way Indiana will get rid of the gerrymandering that allows legislators to choose their voters rather than the other way around would be Congress passing the John Lewis act, which (among other very positive things) would make gerrymandering illegal nationally.

Since the GOP benefits from America’s gerrymandering far more than the Democrats do, passing the John Lewis Act would probably require a Democratic trifecta: a Democratic House and Senate to pass it and a Democratic President to sign it.
Until that happens, if it ever does, Indiana’s Republican gerrymandering is likely to continue giving Hoosiers a Republican legislative majority. But we do have a chance this year to defeat the super-majority, and to slow down our state’s march toward culture-war extremism. One reason is the shifting demography that I previously mentioned. Another is that the GOP has moved so far toward a very unconservative extremism that its candidates are turning off voters who previously voted Republican.

Those realities give four candidates in particular a better-than-usual chance to win their districts:
• Josh Lowry, District 24;
• Tiffany Stoner, District 25;
• Victoria Garcia Wilburn, District 32 (incumbent); and
• Matt McNally, District 39.

We’ll now hear from each of them.

Comments

Shaking Up Indiana

Among the many negative consequences of Republican gerrymandering in Indiana is one that is rarely considered: it has  isolated and largely disenfranchised Southern Indiana’s rural voters. I will readily admit that I hadn’t considered that effect; instead, I’ve been focused on the way urban districts have been carved up and wedded to surrounding suburban and rural areas in order to disenfranchise urban voters.

I’ve now been educated.

A regular reader of this blog sent me a press release about an effort called the Indiana Rural Summit, described as a “Nine-Candidate Supergroup Shaking up Southern Indiana Politics for the Better.”

These nine Democratic candidates for the Indiana House have banded together and are taking their demands for legislation  benefiting rural voters on the road.  The candidates are kicking off a six-stop “event tour” at Jasper’s Strassenfest.

As the release explains:

The Indiana Rural Summit, nine Democratic State House candidates from districts that
represent 24% of Indiana across 22 counties, are rallying around a unified message of hope for
Hoosiers: Rural communities and small towns can have better healthcare, schools, and jobs.
Turning disempowering gerrymandered districts into a secret superpower, they are uniting to
spread this hopeful message to thousands of rural voters, too often left without a choice on the
ballot for state representative due to unopposed races.

“We care about local issues, and our concerns are deeply rooted in our love of family,
community, and the beauty of our region,” says Ryan Still, Monroe County Rural Engagement
Deputy Director and organizer for the Indiana Rural Summit. “The continued policies of
extraction and exploitation from our legislature has left us behind and silenced. Our current state
representatives prioritize corporate lobbyists and outside influencers over Hoosiers. We want
legislators who understand our concerns and refuse to sell us out. We want a state that works
for all of us, not just the wealthy few. We all want to live in communities that thrive.”

The Strassenfest is an annual  parade in the town of Jasper, and the Rural Summit candidates will be joined by Gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick and Attorney General candidate Destiny Wells. (The release also promises a performance by “German band Hungry5.”)

“Most of our districts are rural or artificially rural due to gerrymandering, keeping rural voters
isolated, unheard, and desperately misunderstood. Rarely are these voters asked about their
vision for Indiana by those elected to represent them,” explains Michelle Higgs, Indiana Rural
Summit member running for HD 60. (Monroe/Morgan/Johnson Counties). “Rural voters need a
seat at the table.”

The Indiana Rural Summit is using the very cause that isolates communities to unite and give
rural voters both a voice and an option. Unifying gerrymandered districts that share county
overlap, these nine candidates are turning gerrymandering into a regional coalition fighting for
regional solutions to improve rural Hoosiers’ quality of life. These solutions include better access
to comprehensive healthcare, to jobs with livable wages and benefits, to safe and
affordable housing, and to quality public education.

The effort being mounted by the candidates in the Rural Summit is significant for several reasons. It is certainly a welcome sign of life for rural Democrats, but its importance extends far beyond partisan concerns. Participants in the Rural Summit are making a profoundly important point: gerrymandering deprives all citizens–not just urban residents– of adequate representation.

I have previously noted that gerrymandering is by far the most effective form of voter suppression. In districts drawn to be “safe” for one party or another, voters who prefer the “loser” party disproportionately fail to cast their ballots, assuming their votes won’t matter. (Ironically, if all those discouraged folks actually did cast ballots, some of those districts wouldn’t be safe.)

The Rural Summit candidates are focusing on another consequence of those gerrymandered “safe” districts– the people elected from them have no incentive to actually represent their constituents. They assume they will be elected (or re-elected) in any event. Instead, their incentives are to do the bidding of the party bosses–the political figures who hand out plum committee assignments and direct the distribution of campaign dollars received from the special interests that wield enormous influence at Indiana’s statehouse.

As the press release reminds us, Indiana has the lowest voter turnout in the nation. It also has a large slate of unopposed races– currently, 26 House seats are uncontested.

These two facts are connected: The Indiana General Assembly creates voter suppression and
apathy through gerrymandering and blocking ballot initiatives, so they can pass embarrassingly
bad legislation.

The Indiana Rural Summit wants to empower disheartened voters across 22 counties and get them to the polls. Their success would benefit all Hoosiers currently disenfranchised by our legislative overlords.

Comments

The Real Polarization

Maybe–just maybe–the Americans electorate isn’t as polarized as we’ve been led to believe. Maybe the real polarization is between We the People and our elected overlords.

A recent article from Persuasion recited some interesting data

  • 91% of Americans agree that we all have the right to equal protection under the law.

  • 90% of Americans agree that we all have the right to freedom of speech.

  • 84% of Americans agree with freedom of religion for all.

My first (dismissive) thought when reading those numbers was “how many Americans define these terms in the same way? How many of us actually know what the jurisprudence says these principles mean?” The article began by suggesting a different dismissal–an understandable disinclination of respondents to admit that they actually don’t support these foundational principles.

But then…

But the numbers concerning politics are even more troubling: 60% of Americans agree that both Biden and Trump are too goddamned old to be president. 80% of Americans agree that elected officials don’t give a shit what people like them think. 70% of Americans agree that we pathetic ordinary people—i.e., not rich or famous—have too little influence over the decisions scumbag members of Congress make. The same depressing poll reveals that 63% of Americans agree that most or all politicians are whores—that they ran for office just to make money—and a whopping 85% of Americans agree that whatever made them run for office, it sure as shit wasn’t to serve the public.

The article proceeded to document a very real division between what average Americans believe and the beliefs motivating the policy choices of our elected officials.

In a Pew Research poll from May 13, 2024, two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That would be bad enough, but even more agree that life doesn’t begin at conception, and that moreover embryos should not be considered people with rights…  

Meanwhile, in a recent Gallup poll, 71% of Americans say they don’t give a shit who you marry, i.e., they support same-sex marriage. If we as a nation agree on gay marriage, what’s next? Guns? 

Yes.

A recent public opinion survey from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions “found broad agreement among Americans for gun violence prevention policies—regardless of their political affiliation or whether or not they own guns.”..In a recent Fox News poll of all places, 87% of Americans agree on the need for background checks, 81% of Americans agree on the need to enforce existing gun laws, and 80% of Americans agree on the need to require mental health checks for people purchasing guns. 

There’s more, but we get the point. The people we elect–especially in states like Indiana–are very definitely not representing the desires or perspectives of their constituents.

So–why, you might ask, are reasonable people, people who aren’t racist, homophobic, misogynistic “Christian” nationalists– electing wacko culture warriors like Jim Banks and Todd Rokita? Why is the Indiana GOP running a ticket headed by MAGA Mike Braun and theocrat Micah Beckwith? These are all candidates wedded to a Christian Nationalist agenda–an agenda that wants to prevent women from exercising autonomy over their own bodies, that insists libraries should be banned from carrying books that portray LGBTQ+ people, that wants laws forbidding medical assistance for trans children…the list goes on.

Those poll numbers that reflect what we might call a lack of appropriate respect (cough, cough) for elected officials (okay, a definitely negative image) are the result of a deeply-disturbing structural issue: gerrymandering.

As I have explained multiple times, partisan redistricting–aka gerrymandering–prevents us from engaging in elections that truly reflect the wishes of the voters. Here in Indiana, where there is no referendum or initiative, we are at the mercy of a legislature that is the only body legally empowered to introduce a nonpartisan method of redistricting.  In other words, we depend upon the people who benefit from the current system to change it. (Yeah, good luck with that…)

If democracy means anything, it should mean that We the People are able to select/elect representatives who actually represent us. Clearly, that is not the world we currently inhabit.

In Indiana–and other states that have similarly distorted systems –the only elections that reflect the will of We the People are those that cannot be gerrymandered. The votes for statewide races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Senator and Attorney General (and of course, votes for the national ticket) will be the only votes that truly reflect Hoosier sentiment. 

Those of us in states like Indiana need to send a message to our legislative overlords by voting overwhelming BLUE for those positions in November. (Perhaps they’ll notice, although I’m not holding my breath.)

Comments

The Policy Dilemma

Ever since the Internet displaced slick magazines and daily printed newspapers, wise readers have heeded the warning to avoid the comments.  Something about the anonymity of online responses evidently unleashes some truly hateful impulses. Consequently, except for comments on this blog, I tend not to read the opinions posted by readers of various articles and op-ed pieces. But I do read the “Letters to the Editor” published in the printed magazines I still receive, and I recently read one that deserves wider distribution.

It was printed in the New Yorker, and in a few brief sentences, the writer outlined a central conundrum of policymaking in democratic systems. The letter was a response to an article by Sam Knight about the “uneven performance” of Conservative rule in the United Kingdom. The letter-writer wrote:

But Knight overlooked one force that has shaped the country’s trajectory: the extent to which its government has, since the seventies, transformed from a representative democracy, in which major decisions were made solely by elected officials with support from the civil service, to a popular democracy, in which some of the biggest questions are decided by popular vote rather than by Parliament.

This transformation has created a truly irrational system, which takes important questions influenced by many complicated variables and boils them down to simple binary decisions to be made by people who may not be thoroughly informed. Democracy should remain an ultimate value in the U.K., but, if it is to persist, it must produce positive results for its citizens—something the Brexit referendum clearly has not done. Alas, the supporters of referendums lose track of the ultimate justification for a democracy—namely, that our elected representatives know that we, the voters, can throw them out if we think they are managing the country badly. It is simply wrong to equate this truth with an unproven assumption that voters also have the collective wisdom to regularly make wiser choices about complex issues than our representatives do.

Conservatives in the U.S. have historically insisted–correctly–that this country was not intended to be a pure democracy, but a democratic republic. (I’m not sure everyone making that assertion could have explained the difference, but that’s another issue…) The Founders created a system in which we citizens (granted, then only citizens who were property-owning White guys) democratically elected members of the polity to represent us. The idea was that we would vote for thoughtful, educated, hopefully wise individuals, who would have the time, disposition and mental equipment to analyze complicated issues, deliberate with other, equally-thoughtful Representatives, and negotiate a policy thought likely to address that particular problem.

Direct democracy would put such questions to a popular vote, and complicated issues would be decided based upon the “passions of the majority” that so worried the men who crafted our Constitution.

The Founders’ system makes eminent sense–but it only works when two elements of our electoral system work.

First of all, it absolutely depends upon the qualities of the Senators and Representatives we elect. And second, it depends upon the ability of the voting public to oust lawmakers with whose priorities and decisions they disagree– lawmakers who are not doing what their constituents want.

Those two elements currently do not work, and those electoral dysfunctions explain the inability of our federal legislature (and several state legislatures) to function properly–i.e., to govern, rather than posture. Gerrymandering is at the root of both of these failures, and the reason for the vastly increased resort to popular referenda and initiatives.

Thanks to partisan redistricting, far too many of the people elected to the House of Representatives (Senate elections are statewide and cannot be gerrymandered) are simply embarrassing–ideologues and outright lunatics performing for the base voters of their artificially-constructed districts. People like Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Green, or Indiana’s version of MTG, Jim Banks, all of whom endangered America’s international interests by holding up and then voting against critical aid to Ukraine, among many other things–are examples of the intellectually and emotionally unfit and unserious “look at me” wrecking-ball caucus.

Gerrymandering also limits voters’ ability to rid ourselves of these impediments to rational governance.

There are other aspects of our electoral system that desperately need revision or elimination: the Electoral College comes immediately to mind. But the elimination of gerrymandering–partisan redistricting–would go a very long way to re-centering the system and encouraging thoughtful, reasonable people on both the Left and Right to run for office.

Comments