Popular elections are a cornerstone of the American republic. Yet these can neither be free nor fair if the outcomes are predetermined by the partisans and politicians who draw the maps. The time has come to remedy this anti-democratic redistricting process by establishing independent redistricting commissions.
Following the census every 10 years, the Constitution mandates the reapportionment of House of Representative seats. Each state is then charged with designing new districts that are reflective of population changes. This is called redistricting.
Control over this process is regularly abused for partisan and personal reasons—a tactic known as gerrymandering. Illinois Democrats, for example, have become infamous for their “pizzamanders” whereby they stretch small slices of Chicago into suburban and rural areas in order to maximize their seat count.
Some gerrymandered districts disguise themselves with boxy shapes which hide that they are connecting far-flung communities. Indiana’s new map is an especially skilled example of these “prettymanders.” There, Republicans used rectangular shapes to carve the Democratic-trending Indianapolis suburbs into three separate, predominantly rural districts.
Often gerrymanders are not meant to benefit a particular party, but to secure the reelection of incumbents. “Incumbentmanders” are the most common type of this nefarious process. One particularly notorious example is California’s map from the 2000s. State lawmakers drew a map that protected sitting representatives to such an extraordinary degree that only three lost a primary or reelection across all 53 districts during the entire decade.
In the past, gerrymandering had two remedies. First, voters often showed a greater willingness to elect from either party. But today, increasing political polarization enables political parties to be bolder when crafting lines for selfish purposes. Elections from the past decade demonstrate this. According to the U.S. House of Representatives, the number of elections decided by less than 10% has decreased every cycle since 2010, with the exception of 2018.
Second, up until 2019, extreme gerrymanders could be thrown out in federal court. However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts do not possess the power to invalidate political gerrymanders. State courts are still a potential remedy for this problem, but since their ideologies are usually identical to the lawmakers who created the gerrymanders, they are also not inclined to invalidate them.
In Oregon, the legislative assembly drew a map splitting the city of Portland–which would fit nicely into one district–three ways in order to maximize Democratic victories. Oregon law explicitly prohibits maps drawn “for the purpose of favoring a political party” or that split “communities of common interest.” Nevertheless, the Oregon Supreme Court let this map stand anyway.
In light of all this, it’s time to take redistricting authority away from the politicians and place it in a bipartisan body called the Independent Redistricting Commission.
A total of 13 states have adopted IRCs for congressional maps in some form since Washington state did so in 1982. And while IRCs come in many variations, they have achieved the goals of keeping communities whole, promoting competition when practicable, and forging bipartisanship.
According to the Cook Political Report, 25% of IRC-drawn districts will be competitive in 2022, compared with only 14% of those drawn by state legislatures. Michigan is a perfect example of this. Its IRC produced a map where five out of the 13 districts could be won by either party. It also united the city of Lansing and its metropolitan area into a single district for the first time since the 1960s.
Not all commissions have been equally successful—some have even failed to pass a map at all—but many, like Michigan, accomplished the intent and spirit of the democratic reform. Among these, the most successful IRCs possess three common qualities:
First, IRCs must have independent members. Of every commission composed exclusively of partisans this cycle, all but one failed to produce a congressional map. Arizona’s commission included a centrist independent which forced the Democrats and Republicans to moderate their proposals and genuinely negotiate with each other in order to attract the support of the independent.
Next, IRCs must have complete political independence. In New Mexico, for instance, because the legislature retained final approval over plans submitted by the commission, lawmakers flatly ignored its proposals, instead of enacting an extreme gerrymander of their own.
Finally, commissions must be small. In order to keep IRCs accountable, there needs to be a high level of transparency, which means conducting all mapmaking, negotiating, and deliberating in public. As anyone with experience working in a group can intuit, the largest commissions found it nearly impossible to carry out all functions as a whole group, resulting in dealmaking and negotiating behind closed doors.
One frequent objection to IRCs is that they are undemocratic because they are not directly responsible to the voters. To address this, commissioners should be appointed by elected officials of both parties. Regardless, the strict demands of most IRCs for geographic, ethnic, and political diversity among their members ensure that all interests receive a voice.
With the 2020 redistricting cycle nearly behind us, it’s time that all states adopt an IRC suited to the desires and needs of their own people. It has proven to be the only way our country will have fair and competitive districts nationwide that will allow the people to choose their representatives and not the other way around.
