Gerrymandering Remains Tool to Protect Congress
Methods Proposed To Make U.S. House Districts More Responsive
Aug 31, 2009
The approach of the 2010 U.S. decennial Census means that many states will be revising the maps of their congressional districts based on population changes. Gerrymandering is a prominent issue when this process takes place given the ongoing concerns about having a fair reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives for all 50 states.
Some states already are expecting to have fewer House members. “Massachusetts almost certainly will lose one of its 10 congressional districts after next year’s census, the result of a long-term population shift that is giving Southern and Western states more political power in Washington at the expense of the Northeast, say specialists who have been pouring over data in advance of the 2010 count,” Alan Wirzbicki, wrote in the August 14, 2009 Boston Globe in “Mass. likely to lose seat in US House.”
A common objection is that members of Congress are not representing their constituencies, but instead particular interests that favor them politically. The House specifically is also accused of creating congressional districts conducive to the continual election of incumbent members.
Prospect of Democratic Party Rearranging District Lines for Its Own Political Advantages
“With Democrats armed with renewed control of the federal government, and asserting more power at the state level, there now arises the question of whether Democrats should make efforts at gerrymandering--that is, redrawing district lines to turn Republican-leaning districts into Democratic ones, giving the party a chance at long-term power,” according to Daniel Bornstein in the June 5, 2009 “College News,” in “Gerrymandering: a weapon in ideological warfare.”
Congress after every reapportionment sets the number of representatives in the House. “Over the last 20 to 25 years, what we call reapportionment or redistricting, something that takes place just about every 10 years, has realigned congressional districts to make them safe,” said former U.S. Rep. Fred Grandy (R-Iowa).
Redistricting is done ostensibly to allow for more fairness and greater representation but has become a means to protect incumbents, added Grandy, who now co-hosts a weekday morning program on WMAL Radio in Washington, D.C. It creates predominantly black, Hispanic, and white districts, he said.
Grandy Proposal to Make Districts Larger and Reduce House Size for Broader Opinion
On his August 5, 2009 radio program, Grandy proposed expanding the number of constituents in each congressional district and lowering the number of House seats to force members to represent constituents with views different from their own. Rather than having congressional districts be 693,000 residents as now, he called for districts of 1 million persons and thereby reducing the size of the House proportionally. Instead of 435 House members, the number would be approximately 300 representatives.
Grandy acknowledged this plan is contrary to the concept of equal representation across the country in that some states such as Vermont, Wyoming, and Montana don’t have populations of one million. But he contended the result could a more responsive House with fewer members. The result would be to help small states by giving them more influence as representation is taken away from larger, more populated states.
State legislatures constitutionally can draw maps as they see fit. All they must do is adhere to the population. However, different state proposals to take away the ability of legislatures to alter congressional districts have had trouble winning public approval.
Florida voters in 2010 could have a redistricting ballot initiative to decide on. “If the two constitutional amendments pass, congressional and legislative voting districts could not be designed to favor any political party or incumbent,” political editor Adam C. Smith wrote in the August 29, 2009 St. Petersburg Times, “Gerrymandering ban starts to draw foes.” “Districts would be neatly shaped and take city and county boundaries into account, rather than the current system where state lawmakers use computer programs to map districts based on voter demographics and partisan leanings.”
Difficulties in Trying to Make U.S. House Representation More Representative
One of the more prevalent uses of gerrymandering—a term originating from Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry’s efforts to reshape congressional districts to benefit his political party—is consolidating voters of a particular party into one district to dilute their influence and make it less likely other members of their party will be elected in nearby districts. The Fourth District of Massachusetts, now represented by Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, is listed as one of the nation's most gerrymandered congressional districts.
Matt Rosenberg, writing for About.com in “Gerrymandering: How States Create Congressional Districts Based on Census Data,” stated: “Computers and GIS were utilized in the 1990 and 2000 Census by the states to make redistricting as fair as possible. Despite the use of computers, politics does get in the way and many redistricting plans are challenged in the courts, with accusations of racial gerrymandering tossed about.”
Chris Wilson, in a January 13, 2009 posting on Slate, “Of the Algorithms, by the Algorithms, for the Algorithms,” made much the same point. “For decades, math and computer science have played a profound role in the drawing of legislative districts. And it's hard to argue that they've improved the process. As the amount of information and computing power available to the gerrymanderers has ballooned, they have gotten much better at surgically crafting districts to their precise desires.”
 |
 |
