I agree with the editors of the New York Times that gerrymandering is wrong. I disagree with their implication that only Republicans gerrymander districts. The reality is that political parties who control state legislatures gerrymander districts.
I’ve posted the picture at the top of this post at least a half dozen times. That’s the Illinois Fourth Congressional District. It’s vaguely horseshoe shaped, in some places just one block wide. It was constructed explicitly to ensure the re-election of Luis Gutiérrez. The Democratic Party has had control of the Illinois legislature for decades.
The Illinois Fifth Congressional District in which I reside is likewise gerrymandered to ensure that a Democrat is elected from it. My ward is gerrymandered to protected Marge Laurino. And so on.
The editors’ partisan implication reflects either their own partisan biases or a misunderstanding of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering concentrates minorities whether racial, ethnic, economic, or political to protect incumbents. Simple as that. When in power either party does it unless actively prevented.
I wish that the editors had explored ways and means a little more. While I’m sure that the justices of the Supreme Court can disallow certain district maps, I’m not sure I see any way for them to ban gerrymandering.
Has anyone noticed those rascally-evil Rs were originally elected from districts created by Ds after the 1990 and 2000 Census?
To really rid of gerrymandering; get rid of 1 district 1 member. For example, how about proportional representation on a statewide basis?
That would mean democrats would get 40% of the seats in Texas, Republicans get 35% of seats in California, and third parties in Congress are possible.