Houston Chronicle

Gerrymande­ring threatens our democracy

- By John Arnold John Arnold is co-chair of Arnold Ventures .

A fundamenta­l characteri­stic of representa­tive democracy is that people get to elect their politician­s. Last month, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have no power to stop politician­s from picking their voters. The implicatio­ns of this decision extend well beyond any near-term partisan advantage. It effectivel­y gives politician­s carte blanche to entrench themselves without fear of accountabi­lity from voters or federal courts.

For every American who believes it’s our collective responsibi­lity and collective destiny to continue on the path of establishi­ng a more perfect union, last week’s decision was a setback. But it was not the end of the fight — not even close.

Where the court failed to act, the people can — by working through their representa­tives, courts and direct democracy to pass laws in states and eventually Congress that limit partisan gerrymande­ring.

It won’t be easy. Gerrymande­ring has been an unfortunat­e feature of our republican system since its founding. George Washington famously accused Patrick Henry of drawing Virginia’s districts to promote James Monroe over James Madison during the nation’s first congressio­nal election.

The difference today is that Henry didn’t have terabytes of voter data and advanced mapping software enabling him to group Anti-Federalist Party voters down to the individual household.

Over the past decade, redistrict­ing has transforme­d from an ignoble art into a cruel science that partisans can use to remove all semblance of competitio­n from the electoral process.

General election outcomes are now predetermi­ned for a decade at a time, resetting with each census.

The results distort legislativ­e bodies beyond anything that could be accurately described as representa­tive government. Just look at the bizarre swirl of Texas’ serpentlik­e 2nd Congressio­nal District or the way that Austin is sliced and diced among six representa­tives, and you can tell that something’s wrong.

Hard stats from the two states that sparked the court’s decision, however, make an even more compelling argument. Democrats in Maryland have manipulate­d congressio­nal maps so they regularly win 87 percent of seats despite never receiving more than 65 percent of the statewide vote. And Republican­s in North Carolina successful­ly reshaped congressio­nal districts so they could win a majority of seats despite receiving less than a majority of votes.

Here in Texas, Republican politician­s have used partisan gerrymande­ring to carve out four more congressio­nal districts than they would otherwise receive under straightfo­rward proportion­al representa­tion.

With general elections a foregone conclusion, the real race shifts to obscure party primaries — empowering the partisan faithful and silencing everyone else.

Asking voters to work within that system is patently unfair. No matter how hard one works, no matter how many times a party wins statewide, somehow the entrenched power structure will hang on. That’s why this case before the Supreme Court was so important — and why the outcome is so depressing.

As Ames Grawert of the Brennan Center wrote, “(Justice John) Roberts seems to think that if you’re gerrymande­red into a minority, your only remedy is using your unfairly diluted nonexisten­t political power to fight it.”

Despair in these moments is understand­able, but that’s not the American way. The battle is poised to move from the courts to the people. We saw evidence of that in 2018, when voters in Ohio, Utah, Colorado, Michigan and Missouri successful­ly passed bipartisan anti-gerrymande­ring initiative­s.

Similar efforts are underway in places like Arkansas and Oklahoma. Opposition to politician­s stacking the deck in their favor doesn’t hue red or blue — voters of both parties and no party abhor it when elected officials show themselves to be looking out for their own self-interest as opposed to the public good.

So where does that leave us? Federal courts may have shut their doors, but state courts have their own laws and standards of review. For example, Pennsylvan­ia courts struck down political gerrymande­ring under the state constituti­on’s own “free and equal” elections clause — which doesn’t exist in the U.S. Constituti­on.

A similar outcome may happen this year in North Carolina, where the elected State Supreme Court could prove less amenable to partisan gerrymande­ring than its appointed peers serving lifetime terms at the federal level.

Voters can also work within their state legislatur­e s to build support behind anti gerrymande­ring solutions. This year, lawmakers in New Hampshire passed bipartisan legislatio­n to create an independen­t redistrict­ing commission that is currently on Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk. The Virginia Legislatur­e approved a constituti­onal amendment to do the same, which, if passed again next year, will put the question to voters in 2020.

Perhaps much of this would have been unnecessar­y if the Supreme Court had simply saw partisan gerrymande­ring for what it is — an assault on democracy.

The path forward will be tougher than it needed to be, and it is critically important to get reforms in place before the post-2020 redistrict­ing. For our part, we’re redoubling efforts to invest in efforts to pursue reform in states.

We cannot tackle the gravest challenges unless our democracy functions to represent the will of its people. We now need people to make their will known, with their voices, their votes and their wallets. Even if gerrymande­ring is legally tolerable, we have the power to make it politicall­y untenable — and that is a power we must now exercise.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States