Right now I am in the district of a certain Ander Crenshaw (R), where I have virtually
no chance of helping elect someone who at least represents some of my views,
because the district got drawn in such a way as to ensure a large Republican base.
Why exactly has the Supreme Court not shot down what is obviously a biased,
premeditated, antidemocratic practice? Reading up on the subject a little I did
discover that racial gerrymandering is illegal, but what possible democratic
justification can be put forth for it? If lawmakers themselves are drawing the
districts, favoring their own re-election in the process, isn’t that a huge conflict of
interest? It’s not like it’s a new phenomenon (Elbridge Gerry himself died almost 2
centuries ago). So why does it persist? What arguments have/would the Supreme
Court put forth to support its continued existence?
Well, the districts are supposed to be approved by Congress, so, in theory, both parties would have a say in it. the ultimate problem is that there’s hardly anyone in teh government who ISN’T in one party or another who could draw the districts.
On a related note, in Texas, which has for a while been considered a Democrat state (one known for being more conservative than many Republican states) it was pointed out a few years ago that people seem to have a tendency to vote for republicans despite the state being traditionally democrat, and wanted to rezone the districts. The democrats didn’t want to do this, but didn’t have the numbers to vote it down. So they just left the state, ensuring that there wouldn’t be enough legislators present to vote on ANYTHING.
No, they aren’t. Districts are drawn by state legislatures (or by some other body to whom a particular legislature may have delegated the power), and Congress exercises no power of approval or disapproval.
Of course it is not unconstitutional. There is no section in the Constitution that would prevent states from doing this, so how can gerrymandering violate the Constitution? You do realize that the Constitution gave states a lot of leeway on how to hold elections, right? In fact, I believe the only stipulations it puts on elections is minimum requirements for holding federal office, who can vote, and what day the election is.
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.
has a number of cases where the courts have found gerrymandering unconstitutional. The court cases are now mostly to determine if various redistricting proposals constitute illegal gerrymandering.
Folrida’s fourth district doesn’t look all that badly gerrymandered to me. You want gerrymandering try the district I live in: The Illinois Fourth Congressional District.
How would one write a law that would prevent Gerrymandering? Oh sure, one could easily prevent some of the worst examples. But after that, I can’t see how it’d be possible.
DrDeth has it. The problem is that it’s a fuzzy, hazy practice. Where does one draw the line between acceptable re-drawing of districts and underhanded practices? There are easy ways to make sure you do it morally and honestly from the inside, but very few to ensure it from the outside.
You can take the district drawing process out of the political sphere and hand it over to a non-partisan group. In fact, CA had a ballot initiative in '04 to do just that. Porp 77. It wouldn’t guarnatee that no gerrymandering took place, but it would likely minimize it.
The division of legislative districts shall make use of only the population enumerated by Census, and not any other considerations, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, language, religion, age, marital status, political affiliation, or wealth.
I’d also increase the number of Representatives to 1000 (instead of the current 435). A simple law could change that; no amendment needed. Those two changes alone would vastly improve our democracy.
