In my most recent post, we reviewed Time magazine's illuminating, if dispiriting, look at how presidential campaigns now purposefully deceive and lie, both of them—and why it doesn't hurt them. Today, The Atlantic takes us deeper into the murky, insidious world of "gerrymandering"—or voter redistricting constitutionally required after each decennial census, and the arcane, furtive, often blunt-force process by which the party with power or influence at the time reshapes the make-up of voting districts to their own advantage. It's all about each party's quest for more "safe seats." Says the Republican redistricting vice chair in the House of Representatives; it is "the nastiest form of politics there is." But let's back up and fill in some background on the issue.
Every 10 years, after U.S. census workers have fanned out across the nation, a snowy-haired gentleman by the name of Tom Hofeller takes up anew his quest to destroy Democrats. He packs his bag and his laptop with its special Maptitude software…and departs his home in Alexandria, Virginia, for a United States that he will help carve into a jigsaw of disunity.
Where Hofeller travels depends to some degree on the migratory patterns of his fellow Americans over the previous decade. As the census shows, some states will have swelled in population, while others will have dwindled. The states that gained the most people are entitled, under the Constitution, to additional representation in the form of new congressional districts, which (since the law allows only 435 such districts) are wrenched from the states that lost the most people. After the 2010 census, eight states (all in the South and the West) gained congressional districts, which were stripped from 10 others (in the Midwest and the East Coast, as well as Katrina-ravaged Louisiana).
The creation of a new congressional district, or the loss of an old one, affects every district around it, necessitating new maps. Even states not adding or losing congressional representatives need new district maps that reflect the population shifts within their borders, so that residents are equally represented no matter where they live. This ritual carving and paring of the United States into 435 sovereign units, known as redistricting, was intended by the Framers solely to keep democracy's electoral scales balanced. Instead, redistricting today has become the most insidious practice in American politics—a way, as the opportunistic machinations following the 2010 census make evident, for our elected leaders to entrench themselves in 435 impregnable garrisons from which they can maintain political power while avoiding demographic realities.
That is the context and summary of the what and why questions; now let's explore more about the how question. Just how does the practice and process work? And what was it about the coincidence of the 2010 census and the 2010 mid-term successes of the Republicans that presented them such a unique gerrymandering opportunity? And how did all that work out?
And so his cyclical travels take him mainly to states where the Republicans are likely to be drawing the new maps. (In most states, an appointed committee consisting of legislators from the majority party produces the map, which is then brought to the legislative body for a vote. Other states relegate the duties to an appointed commission.) At meetings, Hofeller gives a PowerPoint presentation titled "What I've Learned About Redistricting—The Hard Way!" …He warns legislators to resist the urge to overindulge, to snatch up every desirable precinct within reach, when drawing their own districts.
[…] Be discreet. Plan ahead. Follow the law. Don't overreach. Tom Hofeller relishes the blood sport of redistricting, but there is a responsible way—as Hofeller himself demonstrated this past cycle in the artful (if baldly partisan) redrawing of North Carolina's maps—and also a reckless way. So that his message will penetrate, he tells audiences horror stories about states that ignored his warnings and went with maps that either were tossed out by the federal courts or created more political problems than they solved.
Already Hofeller has picked out which cautionary tale he will relay during the next decennial tour. The new horror story, he's decided, will be Texas, which stood, this past cycle, as a powerful example of how reckless a redistricting process can become. That mangled effort also provides a stark contrast to the maps Hofeller helped create in North Carolina—drawings that demonstrate how in the blood sport of redistricting, the most cravenly political results are won with calculating prudence.
* * * * *
As the election returns rolled in on the evening of November 2, 2010, Hofeller had already started gearing up for the next round of redistricting. "I'm sitting and watching, less interested than many in the congressional races," he recalled. "I'm the one saying 'Okay, so we won Congress. The question is, are we going to keep it?' And then what I see is that we gained 700 state legislative seats. The night just kept getting better and better. Things happened in some states"—in terms of controlling whole legislative bodies—"that we never expected. Alabama! North Carolina!"
It seemed like Reconstruction all over again for the GOP. Because the Republican tsunami coincided with the 2010 census, Tom Hofeller's party was suddenly able to redraw many of the 435 congressional maps to its own partisan advantage.
Without asking for guidance from Hofeller or other veterans of the trade, delirious party officials predicted that after all the connivances were set in motion, the GOP would be able to reward itself with an additional 15 safe House seats before a single vote was cast in the 2012 elections.
It hasn't quite turned out that way. Partly this is because Democrats understood the stakes and went to extraordinary lengths to blunt the assault. In California, the Democrats (according to e-mails obtained by ProPublica) successfully swayed a newly formed independent citizens' redistricting commission, through an intricately coordinated guerrilla operation that will likely accrue them six or seven new seats. In Republican-controlled Florida, Nancy Pelosi—in relentless pursuit of the House speakership she lost after the 2010 midterms—helped fund the successful "Fair Districts" referendum to ban partisan redistricting. The measure seems to have persuaded Florida map-drawers to exhibit some self-restraint, and thus a number of surefire Republican seats were wiped from the boards. Of course, Pelosi has not suggested that the Fair Districts concept be applied to states where her party wields legislative control, such as Maryland and Illinois, where the Democrats further cut into the GOP's gains by drawing nakedly partisan maps that simply vaporized Republican-held districts.
So, we're starting to get a sense of how intensely the political parties attend to this furtive process, the pre-game game of drawing the playing field so that the pitch of it more clearly assures victory for their candidates—and how well they understand how this pre-game game is played. So much, so well, that they have party teams, chairmen, and full-time strategists working on it. Now let's look at some in-the-trenches examples of just how it works, and especially that Texas example Mr. Hofeller is so eager to share.
By July 2011, Hofeller had helped produce what a Democratic operative ruefully terms "exceptionally smart" maps—ones that, assuming they survive a lingering court challenge, may very well install a 10–3 GOP stronghold in place of the present 7–6 Democratic congressional majority.
Hofeller already knew North Carolina, the focal point of several landmark redistricting cases in which he'd testified, well. The Tar Heel State has a history of election discrimination and is therefore one of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that electoral maps be approved by either a federal court or the Justice Department. (Like all other states, North Carolina is also covered by Section 2, which forbids discriminatory practices more broadly.) Hofeller and the other Republican mapmakers therefore took particular care not to "retrogress" the racial makeup of the districts represented by the African-American Democrats G. K. Butterfield and Mel Watt—since doing so would have meant running afoul of the Voting Rights Act.
Instead, he reserved his chief mischief for the remaining districts. Hofeller and his cohort hoarded several of Raleigh's white precincts and moved them into the 2nd District, which had been held by Democrats for 108 of the previous 110 years, until a former intensive-care nurse named Renee Ellmers rode the Tea Party wave to an upset victory in 2010. The new drawings would give the neophyte Ellmers a safe Republican district to last at least at decade. Recognizing that North Carolina's many Democratic voters had to be put somewhere, the mapmakers shoveled as many as possible into the Democratic districts of Watt and of David Price, a former Duke professor who represented the liberal bastion of Chapel Hill. Most of those Democrats, however, were stripped from the districts of the moderate Democratic incumbents Mike McIntyre, Larry Kissell, and Brad Miller. In the Democrat Heath Shuler's 11th District, the mapmakers simply gouged out the progressive core, Asheville, and affixed it to the 10th, the state's most Republican district over the previous 60 years. The new maps have made quite an impact. Shuler and Miller have announced that they will not seek another term. McIntyre (whose house has now been drawn out of his own district) and Kissell are widely viewed as among the most imperiled Democrats facing reelection in November.
Progressive groups immediately filed suit challenging the North Carolina maps, contending that the state deliberately diluted minority voting power. Hofeller happens to be an old hand at redistricting litigation, and the maps will probably survive into the next decade. Still, legal battles have been the other major factor in diminishing the Republican Party's success.
Given that blacks and Latinos tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, Republicans have often taken pains to maximize their control of the districts in a way that does not violate the terms of the Voting Rights Act. But the new census results have presented the GOP with a particularly confounding puzzle—one that lies at the center of this cycle's redistricting controversies. On the one hand, the biggest gains in U.S. population over the past decade have been in two Republican-controlled states: Florida, which thereby received two new congressional districts, and Texas, which was granted a whopping four.
But on the other hand, most of each state's new residents are African Americans and (especially) Hispanics. In Texas, the population has swelled by 4.3 million over the past decade. Of those new residents, 2.8 million are Hispanic and more than half a million are African American. While those groups grew at a rate of 42 percent and 22 percent, respectively, the growth in white Texans was a meager 4.2 percent. In other words: without the minority growth, Texas—now officially a majority-minority state—would not have received a single new district. The possibility that a GOP map-drawer would use all those historically Democratic-leaning transplants as a means of gaining Republican seats might strike a redistricting naïf as undemocratic.
And yet that's exactly what the Texas redistricting bosses did last year. Shrugging off the warnings of Tom Hofeller and other Washington Republicans, the Texans produced lavishly brazen maps that resulted in a net gain of four districts for Republicans and none for minority populations. The entirely predictable consequence is that the Texas maps have spent more than a year bouncing between three federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The legal uncertainty has had national ramifications. It meant, for example, postponing the Texas primary from March 6 until May 29, which cost Texas its role as a prominent player in the Super Tuesday presidential sweepstakes—a very lucky break for the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, who likely would have lost the state to Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.
But the chaos produced by the overreach in Texas isn't anomalous. Rather, it is very much in keeping with the new winner-take-all culture of redistricting, an endeavor that has somehow managed to grow in both sophistication and crassness, like an ageless strain of cancer that inhabits a host body for so long that the two seem inseparable, even as the former quietly destroys the latter from the inside out.
What, then, are the implications for democracy in America? What does it mean in terms of the equal protection and influence of each person's vote? Based on what we've covered so far, it is understandable that some well-informed insiders see the aggressiveness of redistricting as having reached a point that undermines our democracy and notably diminishes the voting power or influence many minority voters, effectively disenfranchising them. Let's consider the reflections of a veteran of the process who is very much concerned for where the unfettered and unapologetic aggressiveness in this arcane but central process has taken us as a democratic country and representative government—and how far it has taken us from the protective intent of the founding fathers and drafters of the constitution.
During his last few years in the House, John Tanner of Tennessee pursued a lonely quest to interest his colleagues in a redistricting-reform bill. Tanner was a co-founder of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who were all but wiped out in 2010, the year Tanner himself decided to head for the sidelines. He had introduced his bill first in 2005, when the Republicans controlled the House, then in 2007 and again in 2009, when Democrats were in charge and Nancy Pelosi was the speaker. "She and Steny [Hoyer, then the majority leader,] said, 'That's a good idea, we'll take a look at it,' " he recalled with a smirk. "But the hard left and the hard right don't want it."
Tanner says that redistricting's impact has evolved over time, from simply creating safe seats for incumbents to creating rigid conservative and liberal districts, wherein the primary contests are a race to the extremes and the general elections are preordained. "When the [final] election [outcome] is [determined] in the party primary—which now it is, in all but less than 100 of the 435 seats—then a member comes [to Washington] politically crippled," the retired congressman told me. "Look, everyone knows we have a structural deficit, and the only way out of it is to raise revenues and cut entitlements. No one who's reasonable thinks otherwise. But what happens? The Democrats look over their left shoulder, and if someone suggests cutting a single clerk out of the Department of Agriculture, they go crazy. Republicans look over their right shoulder, and if someone proposes raising taxes on Donald Trump's income by $10, they say it'll be the end of the world. So these poor members come to Washington paralyzed, unable to do what they all know must be done to keep the country from going adrift, for fear that they'll get primaried.
"It's imposed a parliamentary model on a representative system," Tanner went on. "It makes sense for Democrats to vote one way and Republicans to vote another in a parliamentary system. It's irrational in a representative form of government. So what that's done is two things. First, it's made it virtually impossible to compromise. And second, as we've seen in this past decade, it's damn near abolished the ability and responsibility of Congress to hold the executive branch of the same party accountable. The Bush years, we were appropriating $100 billion at a time for the Iraq War with no hearings, for fear that [those would] embarrass the administration. Hell yeah, that's due to redistricting! The Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration became part of the same team. We're totally abdicating our responsibility of checks and balances."
Of course, Hofeller and some other redistricting experts are quick to dismiss or play down the impact or entrenchment of gerrymandering's polarizing role and results, or to emphasize other factors at play. Some points worth considering are made. You can be the judge of just how dominating the role of gerrymandering is, and whether that makes you feel any better about it.
Tanner's bill (which fellow Blue Dogs Heath Shuler and Jim Cooper reintroduced last year, to similar non-effect) would have established national standards for redistricting and shifted the map-drawing duties from state legislatures to bipartisan commissions. Such commissions already exist in a handful of states, while Iowa relies on nonpartisan map-drawers whose end product is then voted on by the state legislature. Tom Hofeller points to the California citizens' commission as evidence that politics will inevitably find its way back into the process. "There's no such thing as nonpartisan," he told me.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hofeller insists that the dire consequences of his vocation are overblown. "We've had gerrymandering all along, so there's no proof that that's the cause of all the polarization," he told me. "I'm here to tell you that there are two other major factors that are much, much more prevalent than redistricting. One is the 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week news media, where you only get noticed if you're extreme. And the other is McCain-Feingold, which pushed a great deal of money to the extremes." In limiting the size of financial contributions to national parties, the campaign finance–reform law encouraged donors to funnel their cash to opaque outside groups. (See James Bennet's cover story on this subject.)
"That's part of the problem," Tanner conceded when I asked him about the super-PAC ads flooding the airwaves. "But you can trace how the members got here back to gerrymandering. I don't give a damn how much money you spend. These guys are gonna be responsive to the people that elected them, to avoid a party primary. And so they come here to represent their political party, not their district or their country. That attitude has infected the Senate, too. Look at Orrin Hatch," he said, referring to the veteran Utah senator who fought off a primary challenge from an ultraconservative. "Now you'd think he was an original member of the Tea Party. It makes you sick to see him grovel."
Some redistricting experts argue that Americans have polarized themselves, by gravitating toward homogenous communities, a demographic trend observed in Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing's 2008 book, The Big Sort. But, says one Texas Republican map-drawer, "redistricting has amplified the Big Sort by creating safe Republican and safe Democratic districts. Look at Texas. If you count [Blake Farenthold's] 27th as the result of a fluke election, the [racially polarized West Texas] 23rd is the only swing district in the state." In this sense, the only difference that the new maps will make is that instead of one swing district out of 32, there will now be one out of 36. As to what this portends, former Texas Congressman Martin Frost, a Democrat, told me, "I won't mention anyone by name, but I know certain Republicans in the Texas delegation who would be inclined to be more moderate, if they didn't have to fear a primary challenge."
After considering it all, I'm guessing that you are not much uplifted or comforted by this story, this more aggressive, hyper-partisan mode of gerrymandering--and that you likely had no idea it was going on to this degree. And the dismissive views, or contributing factors noted by some professionals probably don't make you feel a lot better about it, either. If you want to read more on the history of gerrymandering, which actually goes back to the earliest years of the republic, or on troubling examples of the practice of these dark arts by modern political party machines, then do read the entire article. It's long, but as informative as it is distressing.
Link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/2/
