A recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has put the spotlight on the issue of district voting, or more precisely on the design of districts, in a battle that has lasted for decades and that ends up calling into question the core of American democracy.
By 6 votes to 3, the Court, with a conservative majority, annulled the new congressional map proposed in Louisiana, which formed two districts with a black majority. Experts said the ruling significantly restricted a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act, which has been in effect since 1965 and considered a landmark of the country’s civil rights.
The legislation prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race, color or language, including redrawing districts that may create barriers to minority voting representation.
Also read:
The recent case that went up to the country’s highest court was just the most publicized in the midst of a redistricting dispute started last year by President Donald Trump and which today has reached 12 states. At stake are the 435 seats in the Chamber of Representatives, which will be contested in the ‘midterms’ (the mid-term elections) on November 3rd.
But what is this redistricting, nicknamed “gerrymandering”, and why is it so important for control of the House in the US?
Continues after advertising
district vote
Firstly, you need to understand what voting is like in the country. In the USA, a system of single-member districts operates, with the election of representatives being resolved by a simple majority. For federal disputes, each House seat corresponds to an electoral district within a state, for a total of 435. California, for example, has 52 congressional districts and chooses 52 representatives each period. This division also applies to state legislatures and, in some cases, the state Senate, as well as mayors, councilors and school boards. But the expression “district vote” is used basically when referring to the House of Representatives.
Is this account permanent?
There is a possibility that the representation of states will change due to demographic changes and this is also done by redrawing districts. After each 10-year population census, states are responsible for drawing their own congressional districts, generally through state legislatures (controlled by Republicans or Democrats), although there are states that opt for independent commissions and others that leave the decision to the local judiciary. The American Constitution determines that districts must reflect the local population as best as possible, but as there is no specific indication on how to achieve this equality, the process is exposed to local authorities. Hence the complaints about lack of representation of minority groups. But many states have not waited the 10-year deadline to redraw districts.
Why is it necessary to “redraw” districts?
As the country’s population grows, districts, states and cities change size, gaining or losing representation. Some jurisdictions have kept up with population changes over time, shifting the number of representatives assigned to each district or reconfiguring district lines — but others have not. In the 1960s, for example, Los Angeles County (California’s largest county) had 422 times more people than the state’s smallest county. And because each California state senate district elected one senator, each person in the smallest district had 422 times the representation of each resident of Los Angeles. To fix situations like this, it was decided that every 10 years after the census, states would redraw congressional district boundaries to reflect population changes. The logic was that, when done well, the new design would be an opportunity to create maps that could elect representatives more fairly.
What is “gerrymandering”?
This is the term used to define the tactic of manipulating electoral district boundaries to obtain unfair political advantages. The term comes from the 19th century and is a combination of the name of a former governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, and a salamander (“salamander”, in English). This merger was made by a Boston Globe cartoonist following a redesign proposal made by the Democratic-Republican Party and signed by the governor. The design took advantage of the twisted shape of the Boston region to create a kind of mythological salamander, which grabbed the region, according to a text on the Library of Congress blog. There are other comparisons to images formed by redistricting, such as a “praying mantis” in Maryland, a snake in North Carolina and even “Donald Duck and Goofy” in Pennsylvania.
Break and pack
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties use tactics to increase their representation or reduce that of their opponents when they redraw district maps. The two best-known practices are “cracking”, when controlled districts are “broken” into several pieces, and “packing”, a tactic of “packing” groups in a given area and limiting the election of more representatives.
What are the problems with politicized redesign?
According to experts, among the problems created when districts are redrawn to suit only party desires, representation becomes distorted: a party that receives fewer total votes can still win the majority of seats, which distorts the electorate’s preferences. This undermines voter choice because districts become “safe” for one party. Another frequently cited aspect is change – or the lack thereof, marginalizes communities, increases polarization and begins a process of erosion of public trust in the democratic process.
Continues after advertising
