Redistricting Matters

BY ZACH THOMAS

Redistricting is the way in which we adjust the districts in order to determine who represents us.

Everyone in the United States lives in different districts. Members of Congress and state legislators are elected from these districts, and at least once per decade, the district lines are redrawn, block by block. In most states, the legislators themselves draw these legislative district lines.

The way the lines are drawn can keep a community together or split it apart, leaving it without a representative who feels responsible for its concerns. The way the lines are drawn can ultimately change who wins an election. In the end, the way the lines are drawn can change who controls the legislature, affecting which laws get passed, and shaping the future of the state and country.

Imbalance of Power

One common complaint about gerrymandering is that prospecting for voters by party tends to interfere with other objectives of redistricting. For example, depending on where a party’s supporters live, drawing lines that follow party preference may lead to districts that are not compact, that cross political lines, or that carve out chunks of social or economic communities of interest.

Another complaint about gerrymanders is that they distort representation in the state overall. In a state with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, it is possible for either party to win a disproportionate majority of seats in the legislature depending on where the lines are drawn.

Some of this disproportion is the by-product of virtually any district lines, if a single seat is up for grabs by the candidate who wins the most votes. In this kind of “winner take all” system, the preferences of voters who support losing candidates do not translate into legislative seats, no matter how the districts are drawn. At best, losers in one district can hope that their preferred party wins by a comparable margin, in a district somewhere else in the state, to make up for the loss.

Because this rarely works out exactly, there is almost always a difference between a party’s statewide support and the percentage of seats that it wins in an election (Fig 1). Some view this difference as a good thing, because it tends to produce legislative majorities that are more robust, and can therefore implement changes more easily. Some view it as a distortion to be avoided. In the past election cycle, this practice heavily favored Republicans (Fig 2). Either way, it is to some extent an inherent part of “winner take all” elections.

Packing Partisans: Austin’s Divided Population

Austin has long had a reputation for being an anomaly in the state of Texas. Politically, it’s a blue dot in an otherwise red state. However, a redistricting plan put in place by the Republican-led state legislature in 2011, and temporarily upheld by a panel of federal judges, sought to erase as much blue from Texas as possible.

Six U.S. House districts take in at least a portion of Austin, Texas and surrounding Travis County under this interim plan and Austinites don’t come close to comprising the majority of residents in any of them. In contrast, the nation’s ten more populous cities have at least one such “anchor” district.

In a March 24, 2012, commentary published in the Austin American-Statesman, Austin lawyer Steve Bickerstaff said the legislatively-initiated splitting of Travis County among several districts was “clearly intended to dilute, not enhance, the effect of the county’s voters (especially Democrats). These objectives are not surprising for a Republican-lead Legislature, because Travis County is the only major Texas county in which a majority of non-Hispanic white people continue to vote consistently for Democratic candidates.”

Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett became a central target of the Republican Legislature during this redistricting process. His house was redrawn into the Republican-friendly 25th District. Doggert stated that the Legislature’s plan was “to deny a voice for our unique Austin community—where neighbors of all ethnic backgrounds can come together to serve in elective office. It would mean Congress members who are less accessible, less accountable and more beholden to moneyed special interests, as election costs soar in these bizarre districts.”

A more detailed breakdown of redistricting practices as part of Zach’s senior thesis can be found at zachthomasdesign.com/redistricting. For more information on gerrymandering and redistricting in your state, you can visit allaboutredistricting.com.