There’s nothing I hate more than writing columns about gerrymandering. I’ve written several, but I thought I could give it a rest until the next census in 2030. But thanks to President Donald Trump and Texas, here we go again.
Gerrymandering means partisan cheating in drawing congressional district lines. Lines have to be redrawn after every 10-year census because of population changes. Nothing in the law states that you can’t redistrict (possibly with gerrymandering) in between, but redistricting is so ugly and painful that no one wanted to do it more than necessary — until now.
At Trump’s suggestion, Texas Republicans are trying to redraw their already dubious lines to be even more dubious halfway between censuses. And in response, Democratic states have proposed changing their laws so that they could do the same. New Mexico probably won’t join that party because we’re already maxed out on cheating.
Some of you may have read Merritt Hamilton Allen’s column in Saturday’s Daily Press. She reviewed her role in the 2021 Redistricting Task Force, a bipartisan organization that tried to draw nonpartisan district maps. Following the Legislature’s direction, she worked with other citizens to consider all factors and draw fair lines, only to see the Democratic majority throw out their work and draw partisan lines.
Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats in other states — with Republicans winning overall — were gerrymandering like salamanders on psychedelic mushrooms. Gerrymandering started in 1812, but modern practitioners use computers to draw crooked lines more efficiently.
This stupid controversy shouldn’t exist. Gerrymandering is a well-known constitutional problem, and most countries have eliminated it. The solution is independent redistricting commissions, as used (without loopholes) in Arizona, California, Colorado and a handful of other states.
There is no perfect redistricting solution in any country with districts. The district lines have to be drawn somehow, and somebody is bound to be unhappy with the results. The best solution may be difficult, but the wrong solution is easy to identify. The majority party should not be allowed to draw corrupt lines in its favor.
That’s what the Supreme Court should have decided in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause. The case was based on a perverse Republican gerrymander in North Carolina and an unscrupulous Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, agreed that excessive gerrymandering is “incompatible with Democratic principles,” but said the solution is not with the judiciary, but with state or federal legislatures. The court could not come up with nonpolitical standards to apply.
But here I will exercise my fundamental American right to declare the justices completely wrong. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says states cannot deny equal protection, but that is the only purpose of gerrymandering. No one would do it if it weren’t fraudulent.
The court doesn’t need to come up with standards for redistricting; it just needs to restrict obviously crooked methods. Imagine that a state wanted to redistrict by corporate auction. Let the highest bidder draw the lines. The Supreme Court shouldn’t try to set standards for auctions; it should just forbid them.
And that’s why, when New Mexico Republicans filed a lawsuit against the Democratic gerrymander, they didn’t cite the majority Supreme Court opinion. They cited Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, which was even more critical of gerrymandering than this column. But dissents have the same legal standing as my declaration that the justices were wrong. Republicans lost their lawsuit, and Rep. Gabe Vasquez squeaked out a victory in gerrymandered Congressional District 2.
But now states that have rejected gerrymandering on principle have to decide whether they will abandon those principles to counter the midterm gerrymander in Texas. This would have to start with California, a state large enough to challenge for the title of most unethical.
When the choice is corruption or defeat, even the most principled party will sin. If the House of Representatives is at stake, and the result will be decided by a few districts, any party will do what it must. Political parties are designed for power, not integrity.
But gerrymandering to increase your already-big lead is risky. The way gerrymandering works is that you take a district that has too many of your supporters and slice off a piece to give to a district with too few of your supporters. But if you cut it too close — or if the political situation changes — you might lose both of those districts. You just can’t count on those fickle voters.
If Republicans have no principles and Democrats compromise theirs, who are you going to vote for? Fortunately, the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. I’m hoping that none of this skullduggery turns out the way its authors expect.
