‘Extreme gerrymandering corrupts our democracy’

The Donald Trump-inspired “gerrymandering wars” spreading across the country portend chaos for the most fundamental pillar of our political system — representative democracy. Congress must put its own House in order, and it can do so, in a clear, workable fashion.

From the sidelines, gerrymandering appears a rather harmless game, one party picking its voters by drawing absurd-looking districts to gain advantage over the other party. Nothing new here. In fact, extreme gerrymandering corrupts our democracy by, in sum, denying most registered voters a role in elections, eliminating competition, polarising elections and, when election winners reach office, turning a blind eye to most voter concerns.

The basic reason for these pernicious consequences is that gerrymandering shifts voter decision-making from the general election to the primary of the dominant party in the district, in which relatively few voters participate. This allows partisan mapmakers to preordain the outcomes, protecting incumbents and maximising majorities for the partisans in charge of the process.

We find in Illinois the following consequences flow from our state’s extreme gerrymandering, by the Democratic legislative supermajority, itself created by gerrymandering:

• In 2024, nearly half the 118 Illinois House districts were uncontested in the general election — no reason to vote! Interest in democracy dries up when there is no competition on offer.

• Gerrymandered elections are decided in the primaries, which shuts more than 7 of every 8 registered voters — the opposition party’s voters, independents and those who don’t vote in primaries — out of the election process. *When elections are decided in primaries, candidates appeal to the fringe of their party — often the most aroused — ignoring the rest of us voters.

• In office, candidates elected in primaries can ignore moderates and the opposition party, as they are irrelevant to their reelection. Fair Maps Illinois is pursuing straightforward reforms that will result in fair redistricting maps. The objective is not perfection, which is impossible, as districts are evaluated through the eyes and values of the beholder. Instead, the goal is to preclude the mapmakers from basically ensuring the outcomes, on behalf of incumbents and hyper-partisan majorities, in advance of elections.

The Fair Maps Illinois ballot proposal simply requires that a politically balanced commission of state legislators and public members draw districts that are compact (which is measurable), align with county and municipal boundaries wherever possible, and avoid use of partisan political data. Adhering to these criteria would dramatically limit the mischief that characterises mapmakers who seek unfair partisan advantage.

Congress has the authority to provide the states with guidelines to be met in decennial redistricting. Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The federal government already directs the states in congressional redistricting, requiring equal population per district and providing racial minorities opportunities to win seats.

Congress could direct the states to enact decennial redistricting maps that meet simple criteria such as those proposed in Illinois. The U.S. House would certify that a state’s congressional redistricting meets these standards. If not, Congress would draw the map for that state, according to the required criteria. Congress should stay out of the states’ actual redistricting, leaving that with each state, unless congressional guidelines are not met. We fear a national commission to redistrict the U.S. House, as has been suggested, would become mired in the “political thicket” of redistricting, to recall the admonition in 1946 of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. The present Supreme Court headed by John Roberts has tried to adhere to Frankfurter’s counsel where partisan gerrymandering is concerned. This has proved difficult, however, as both racial and partisan issues have become entangled in redistricting cases recently confronting the court.

There is reason for hope that we might end the gerrymandering wars. Poll after poll finds that the public does not like gerrymandering. Second, the 20 states with responsible districting are being played the fools for being good citizens. That is, for doing the right thing their congressional representation is less partisan, one way or the other, than it could be. The fair-minded states should insist on fair play nationally.