0

Gerrymandering in the United States:

Corruption in the American Political System

Ryan Andes
CAS 138T: Rhetoric and Civic Life
David Maxson
April 13, 2016

1
After the 2010 redistricting cycle, Real Clear Politics described Pennsylvania as the
gerrymander of the decade, for the Republican controlled state legislatures ability to create a
solid majority of Republican friendly districts in a Democrat-leaning state.1 During the 2012
Pennsylvania Congressional elections, the Democratic Party won fifty-one percent of the popular
vote but just five out of the possible eighteen House of Representatives seats.2 Doing the math,
five out of eighteen is a little under thirty percent and far below what would be expected for this
vote total. This could be just an anomaly; however in 2014, the Republican Party won fifty-five
percent of the popular vote in the Congressional elections, yet garnered thirteen out of eighteen
House seats.3 Again looking at the total, thirteen out of eighteen is a puzzling seventy-two percent
of the available House of Representatives positions, far more than expected. The reason behind
this disparity in proportional representations is that Pennsylvania is one of the nations most
heavily gerrymandered states.4 In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a
redistricting of the states house districts such that the new boundaries brazenly favored his
Democratic-Republican Party. The Boston Gazette printed a political cartoon of one of the newly
formed district that resembled a salamander, mocking the ridiculousness of the new boundaries,
which they described as gerrymandering, combining the governors name and salamander.5 The
term stuck and is now used to describe the practice of manipulating electoral boundaries for
political gain. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that every ten years a census will be taken to
reevaluate the proportional representation of each state in Congress. Shifting population density
causes states to lose and gain seats in the House of Representatives, which then requires new
electoral districts. As stipulated in Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution, the time place and
manner of holding electionsshall be prescribed by state legislatures, so the task of redistricting
is left up to state legislatures who have consistently used this privilege to maintain power for their

2
party.6 As a result, we get Pennsylvania congressional districts that look like this and a heavy
majority of Congressional Republicans unrepresentative of the states strong Democratic base.

Politico 2012 PA Congressional

House Election Map8

Politico PA 2012
Presidential Election7

Red-Republican
Blue-Democrat

3
While the rest of the worlds democracies have adopted a system of independent commissions to
perform the task of redistricting, America remains the exception 9
Harms
Gerrymandering is firmly ingrained into the nature of American politics. In 1788,
just after the signing of the Constitution, Patrick Henry convinced the Virginia state
legislature to construct the 5th congressional district in such a way that it would force his
political enemy, James Madison, to run against popular politician, James Monroe.10 The
tradition of gerrymandering has carried strong into the present day in states like North
Carolina, the nations most heavily gerrymandered state.11 Republican control of the state
legislature in 2010 allowed the party to turn a 7-6 Democrat representation into a 9-4 G.O.P.
majority after the 2012 elections.12 By allowing partisan state legislators to perform the
crucial duty of setting electoral boundaries, this system gives a decade-long advantage to
whatever party happens to be in power. Lynn Westmoreland, the Republican redistricting
vice chair in the U.S. House of Representatives, called this mapmaking process, the nastiest
form of politics that there is.13 Former Congressman John Tanner describes redistrictings
effect on politics as divisive, polarizing, and imposing a parliamentary model on a
representative system.14 In an interview with The Atlantic, Tanner details how creating
rigid conservative and liberal districts forces politicians to vote the party line and eschew
compromise. Tanner attributes Congress inability to compromise on matters of national
importance such as the debt ceiling to fear of being primaried or being replaced by a more
conservative or liberal challenger.15 This analysis is seconded by Robert Draper, author of
Do Not Ask What Good We Do, a book on the House of Representatives. In his book, Draper
confirms that members from heavy Republican and Democratic districts were far less likely

4
to vote for the debt ceiling (NPR).16 In 2014, Ballotopedia found that only 26 out of 435 or
just six percent of U.S. House elections were considered competitive or had margins of
victory of less than five percent.17 With a decisive margin of victory and an incumbent
reelection rate of 90%, politicians may not be so beholden to their constituents when a spot
in the House of Representatives is all but assured.18 Gerrymandering distorts the electoral
voice of the people and corrupts the very nature of our democratic values. An analysis by
Christopher Ingram of the Washington Post measured the vote share of both parties in the
2012 election versus their actual representation in Congress and found that the Democratic
Party was underrepresented by eighteen seats. While the Democrats had earned 51% of the
popular vote and 1.17 million more total votes in the congressional election, they garnered
only 46.2% of the total seats in the House.19

An analysis study done by a Duke University Math Professor determined that the
political will of the people was misrepresented in the aforementioned North Carolina 2012
Congressional elections specifically due to gerrymandering. Using the requirements that
districts be compact, connected, and contain equal numbers of peoplethe current legal
redistricting requirementsthe study created a sample of 100 random redistrictings and
used voting data from the 2012 election to determine the number of representatives that
would be elected from each party under the new boundaries. All of the samples produced no
fewer than six to nine Democratic representatives, which was far greater than the elected
four. This Duke analysis of redistricting demonstrates that gerrymandering has a measurable
effect on election outcome that is often contrary to the sentiment of the people.20

6
Gerrymandering evokes a sense of corrupt back room dealings, party bosses, and political
vendettas that are not that far off from the truth. Politicians use techniques such as cracking,
dividing a community among several districts to reduce its political cohesiveness, and
packing, which attempts to put opposing voters, often minorities, into one large district
thereby limiting their influence to just one representative. Techniques such as hijacking,
forcing two incumbents into one district, or kidnapping, which redistricts an incumbents
house out of his own district unfairly limits the oppositions reelection prospects, are often
used to attack political rivals.21 These politically motivated boundaries cut off rivals from
key donors, supporters, pet projects, and districts where they have earned a public reputation
and in many cases dissuades incumbents from even seeking reelection.22 Instead of voters
choosing politicians, redistricting at its worst lets politicians choose voters.23 In the 2010
election, Blake Farenthold, a white Republican, was able to win a majority Latino district, in
which he lost eighty-six percent of the Latino vote, due to poor voter turnout. Facing slim
reelection prospects, Farenthold became the recipient of a favorable Republican redistricting
following the 2010 census and now is a three-term congressman. While our democratic
system is supposed to give its citizens control over their representatives, Farenthold was able
to escape potential negative backlash by choosing a more favorable constitutency.24 To the
rest of the worlds democracies, the decision to take redistricting power away from
politicians seems apparent as, the potential for abuse is so obvious that it is a kind of
miracle that the system has survived as long as it has. 25
Inherency
Citizens do have legal recourse against gerrymandering through their ability to challenge
state redistricting plans in federal courts. A number of landmark Supreme Court cases have set

7
precedence for the standards upon which district boundaries should be evaluated. In 1964 the
Supreme Court determined in Reynolds v. Sims that legislative districts must be equal in
population. The case established the one person one vote principle, which said that every
eligible voter must have the same influence in the outcome of an election.26 The 1965 Voting
Rights Act prevents minority groups from discrimination in voting procedure, which can be
applied to redistricting plans. As a result of increased focus on minority voters, the practice of
creating majority-minority districts, or districts with high minority populations has become
commonplace.27 This has allowed more minority candidates to be elected to Congress. In Bush v.
Vera (1996) the court ruled that even districts drawn so as to maximize minority representation
should retain compactness, contiguity and respect for political subdivisions.28 Thus this set the
precedent that standards of appearance such as compactness, continuity, and preserving
communities of interest were qualifications for legal gerrymandering, which have now been
adopted by many state constitutions.29 Many states have turned to alternative methods instead of
traditional state legislature control over redistricting. Seven states use political commissions,
which constitute a small committee of appointed or prescribed members.30 Unfortunately, most
of these small committees are not bi-partisan leading to the issues mentioned in the Harms
section. In 2015, moderate Democrat John Tanner unsuccessfully pitched the defeated John
Tanner Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which would have established a bipartisan committee of state legislators appointed by minority and majority leaders of the
legislature.31 The other alternative system in place utilizes independent citizens commissions and
is currently in place in six states.32 In 2015 in the Supreme Court case Arizona State Legislature
v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, this practice survived a challenge by the
Arizona State legislature that contested the independent redistricting committee on the grounds

8
that it took constitutional power over elections from the state legislature.33 While certain
restrictions have been put on its use, the practice of gerrymandering remains entrenched in thirtyseven states and is a favored political tool of politicians on the left and right.
Solution
As a solution to the nefarious practice of gerrymandering, my proposed legislation will
give redistricting power to independent citizens commissions and build upon an earlier proposal,
H.R. 2173. The Redistricting Reform Act of 2015 or H.R. 2173, was a recent bill proposed by
congressmen Zoe Lofgren that would require all states to create independent citizens
commissions similar to those already in place in Lofgrens home state of California.34 Under this
proposal a non-partisan state government agency would randomly select twelve individuals from
both political parties to conduct redistricting.35 The independent commissions would be
prohibited from including factors such as party affiliation, voting patterns, or incumbency into
redistricting decisions while the new boundaries would take into account factors such as
compactness and communities of interest.36 Requirements for choosing committee members
would be based on those currently in place in California. Members cannot be government
employees, contractors, or running for office or closely related to a government employee or
candidate for office.37 Additionally, commissions members cannot have donated more than two
thousand dollars to a political campaign.38 The California Citizens Redistricting Commission
selects pools of potential redistricting commissioners through the state auditors office while the
state legislature plays a role in the assembly of the final commission.39 My proposal would give
complete control over committee selections to the impartial state auditors office, which would
randomly select twelve applicants out of the pool of qualified citizens. Interviews for the position
would stress that the applicant while being civically engaged is not an active contributor to either

9
party through donations, volunteerism, or activism. As in California law, this national
redistricting legislation would require new boundaries be drawn approximately eight months
after the completion of the census report. In summary, my proposed solution to the issue of
gerrymandering is to create national legislation based on the California Citizens Redistricting
Commission, in which non-partisan, non-government affiliated citizens are randomly selected by
an impartial government entity, the state auditors office, to draw new electoral boundaries based
on the census report.
Solvency
Many politics observers count the California Citizens Redistricting Commission a
success. An analysis done by the Public Policy Institute of California, which measured voter
registration by party in the newly drawn districtscompetitive districts constitute a 5%
Republican or 10% Democratic advantagefound that the number of competitive U.S. House
districts more than doubled from 4 to 9 competitive seats after redistricting reform.40 Ten
California U.S. House of Representatives races made the list of the seventy-five most contested
congressional seats, the most of any state.41 Additionally, more competitive races resulted in
fourteen incumbents failing to win reelection and a 76% reelection rate in 2012.42 In comparison,
the national reelection rate for the House of Representatives was 90% in 2012.43 This represents a
monumental change in incumbency reelection from 2002-2010 when only one incumbent in 265
U.S. House races lost an election.44 While House incumbents faced off due to redistricting, gone
were the days of political hijacking. More competitive electoral districts should alleviate former
Congressmen Tanners concerns that politicians were becoming more responsive to party leaders
than constituents. Californias solution to redistricting has an important distinction over
gerrymandering: politicians dont choose voters; voters now choose politicians. This along with

10
increasing turnover rate for incumbents and increasing competitiveness of districts will force
politicians to work harder to represent their constituents wishes and become more bi-partisan in
the hopes of attracting votes from across the aisle.
Advantages
One clear advantage of implementing a nationwide system of independent redistricting
commissions is that it has already been tested in six states including Alaska, Arizona, California,
Idaho, Montana, and Washington.45 Few questions remain as to how these independent
commissions would operate because electoral boundaries have already been drawn under this
system. Moving to an independent redistricting system has inherent cost and time savings
benefits. Both parties currently employ redistricting consultants that make their living off
manipulating electoral boundaries.46 In contrast, serving on the California Redistricting
Commission is a part-time job, which reduces the number of federal redistricting lawsuits and
provides state legislatures with the opportunity to focus on other urgent matters. The 2016
election has proved that Americans are becomingly increasingly aggravated by political schemes,
ineffective politicians, and a do-nothing congress. The Gallup Congressional Approval Rating for
2016 has hovered consistently around just 15%.47

11

Another Gallup Poll from September 2015 showed that only a measly 4% of Americans have a
great deal of faith that the U.S. government as a whole can handle pressing domestic
problems.48 Taking the power of redistricting away from politicians could restore the American
publics political efficacy or the feeling of being able to produce meaningful change in politics.
By increasing transparency in politics and taking away a potential avenue for political
corruption, Americans may have increased faith in their government and may participate more in
politics if their actions in this case translated into meaningful change.
Disadvantages
The entire idea behind independent redistricting commissions is to take redistricting out
of the hands of politicians; however, Politico reported that in 2011 the Democratic Party cleverly
lobbied the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to gain a political edge.49 Democrats
surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to
testify in support of configurations that coincided with the partys interests.50 Under the guise of
being unconnected to the Democratic Party, these supporters were able to sway redistricting
commissioners to create Democrat-friendly maps.51 Even seemingly independent bi-partisan

12
electoral boundaries were subject to the influence of politicians. A 2009 study published in the
American Journal of Political Science by Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal
indicate that gerrymandering is only a limited factor in congressional polarization.52 Citing the
increased polarization of the U.S. Senate, which is unaffected by gerrymandering, McCarty,
Rosenthal, and Poole, assert that other causes are at play. Increasingly homogeneous political
communities caused by the sorting of Democrats and Republicans into urban and rural areas
respectively along with the differences in how Democrats and Republicans would represent the
same district are believed to be stronger causes of polarization than gerrymandering.53
Additionally, the current redistricting systems focus on drawing minority-majority districts
increase the number of minority representatives in Congress. Due to majoritarian election rules
in the U.S., creating districts that reflect more compact boundaries could reduce minority voting
power and representatives in Congress.54 While independent redistricting is clearly not the
answer to all of the political problems in the United States, these citizens commissions remove
the conflict of interest that arises when the politicians who benefit from new electoral boundaries
also draw the maps. Redistricting by independent citizens commissions has been proven to work
effectively in the states in which it is utilized and this solution has the power to restore credibility
to an ailing political system. Throughout this election season voters have voiced their
overwhelming displeasure with politicians and a political elite that does not accurately represent
the publics interests. As the data has shown, gerrymandering has created a situation in which the
peoples electoral voice does not translate into a proportional number of similarly minded
candidates being elected to office. By doing away with a system that disregards the virtues of
democracy, American citizens will slowly begin to feel like their vote and voice is being heard.
While the tradition of democracy originated in America, today we lag behind the rest of the

13
worlds democracies, which have closed this outdated political loophole and have adopted
instead the same type of system being advocated for in this proposal. In the words of President
Franklin Delino Roosevelt, The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and
senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country. It is now
time to leave behind Governor Gerrys legacy and close this legal loophole to give the power
back to the voters to choose their representatives and not the other way around.

14

Citations

1. Sean Trende, In Pennsylvania, the Gerrymander of the Decade?,

Real Clear Politics, last modified December 14, 2011, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/.
2. Johnathan Tamari, How PA illustrates Obama's call on gerrymandering, Philly.com,
last modified January 14, 2016,
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/PA-illustrates-Obama-call-gerrymandering.html.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Emily Barasch, The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics,
The Atlantic, last modified September 19, 2012,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-inamerican-politics/262369/.

6.

U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec.4.

7. 2012 Pennsylvania Presidential Results, Politico, last modified November 19,

2012, http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/pennsylvania.
8. 2012 Pennsylvania House Results, Politico, last modified November 19,
2012, http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/house/pennsylvania.

9.

Time to Bury Governor Gerry, The Economist, October 10, 2010

15
http://www.economist.com/node/17202149.

10.

Emily Barasch. The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American

Politics,

11.

Christopher Ingraham. Americas most heavily gerrymandered

congressional districts, The Washington Post, last modified May 15, 2014,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-mostgerrymandered-congressional-districts/.

12. 2012 North Carolina House Results, Politico, last modified November 19,
2012, http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/house/north-carolina/.
13. Robert Draper, The League of Dangerous Mapmakers,
The Atlantic, October 2012,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.

16
16. Redistricting: A Story Of Divisive Politics, Odd Shapes, NPR, last modified
September 12, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161685998/redistricting-a-story-ofdivisive-politics-funny-shapes.
17. Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections, Ballotopedia,
last modified January 2015,
https://ballotpedia.org/Margin_of_victory_analysis_for_the_2014_congressional_elections.

18. Charles Mahtesian, 2012 reelection rate: 90 percent, Politico, last modified
December 13, 2012
http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/12/2012-reelection-rate-90-percent-.
19. Christopher Ingraham, Americas most heavily gerrymandered
congressional districts.
20. John C Mattingly and Christy Vaughn, Redistricting and the Will of the People,
October 29, 2014.
21. Olga Pierce, Jeff Larson and Lois Beckett. Redistricting a Devils
Dictionary,Propublica, November 2, 2011, https://www.propublica.org/article/redistrictinga-devilsdictionary
22. Robert Draper, The League of Dangerous Mapmakers.
23. Olga Pierce, Jeff Larson and Lois Beckett, Redistricting a Devils Dictionary.

17
24. Robert Draper, The League of Dangerous Mapmakers.
25. Time to Bury Governor Gerry, The Economist.
26. Alex Mc Bride, Reynolds v. Sims, PBS, last modified December 2006,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_reynolds.html.
27. Redistricting, Ballotopedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting.
28. Robert Draper, The League of Dangerous Mapmakers,
29. Redistricting, Ballotopedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting.
30. Ibid.
31. Eric Petry, Congress Wades Into Redistricting Reform, last modified May 13
2015, https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/congress-wades-redistricting-reform.
32. Redistricting, Ballotopedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting.
33. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission,
Oyez, last modified April 12, 2016, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-1314
34. Eric Petry, Congress Wades Into Redistricting Reform.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.

18
37. Redistricting, Ballotopedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Eric McGhee, Redistricting Commission Map Look More Competitive, Public
Policy Institute of California, last modified June 19, 2011,
http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=1126.
41. John Hrabe, 10 California House race ranked most competitive in nation, Cal
Watchdog.com, last modified July 18, 2012, http://calwatchdog.com/2012/07/18/10california-u-s-house-races-ranked-most-competitive-in-country/.
42. Michael B. Morris, California Redistricting Shake-Up Shakes Out Politicians,
Bloomberg News, last modified March 22, 2013,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-21/californias-redistricting-shake-upshakes-out-politicians.
43. Charles Mahtesian, 2012 reelection rate: 90 percent.
44. Michael B. Morris, California Redistricting Shake-Up Shakes Out Politicians.
45. Redistricting, Ballotopedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting.
46. Robert Draper, The League of Dangerous Mapmakers.

19
47. Congress and the Public, Gallup, last modified March 2016,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx.
48. Trust in Government, Gallup, last modified March 2016,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx.
49. Alex Isenstadt, How Dems won California's remap, Politico, last modified
December 21, 2011, http://www.politico.com/blogs/david-catanese/2011/12/how-dems-woncalifornias-remap-108383.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Does Gerrymandering Cause
Polarization?, American Journal of Political Science 53, no. 3 (Jul., 2009): 666-680,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

20