Why partisan redistricting threatens real representation

Redistricting has become a hot top­ic of late. Under the direc­tion of President Trump, states with Republican major­i­ty leg­is­la­tures were urged to under­take mid-cen­sus changes to their vot­ing maps.

Before now, redis­trict­ing was usu­al­ly under­tak­en on a ten-year rota­tion, fol­low­ing the nation­al cen­sus. This made ratio­nal sense because the decen­ni­al cen­sus revealed changes in pop­u­la­tion move­ments and loca­tions. With the door open, it may now even be pos­si­ble for states to redis­trict annu­al­ly, should they choose to do so.

It is some­what iron­ic that the U.S. Constitution says vir­tu­al­ly noth­ing about how vot­ing rights are to be dis­trib­uted amongst the pop­u­lace. Article I, Section 2 only man­dates that “rep­re­sen­ta­tives be appor­tioned among the states based on population.”

As the dis­trict map of Kentucky reveals, “the pop­u­la­tion” can be spread out in high­ly sub­jec­tive ways. That sub­jec­tive man­ner is based, in most states, on which par­ty is in pow­er at any giv­en moment because most state con­sti­tu­tions estab­lish the pow­er of dis­trict­ing in the legislature.

As of 2024, only sev­en states had “inde­pen­dent” com­mis­sions respon­si­ble for dis­trict­ing: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, and Washington.

The long his­to­ry of redis­trict­ing is rife with cor­rup­tion. Both the Democratic and Republican par­ties have been guilty of exploit­ing the lack of clar­i­ty in the laws to pur­sue their own advantage.

Partisan redis­trict­ing real­ly took off fol­low­ing the 2019 rul­ing of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause, when the 5–4 rul­ing essen­tial­ly rec­og­nized the faults in dis­trict­ing but con­clud­ed that “fed­er­al courts are pow­er­less to solve it,” appar­ent­ly because the Constitution is so vague about the subject.

David Brooks, con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist for var­i­ous pub­li­ca­tions includ­ing the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and The Atlantic, and now a reg­u­lar com­men­ta­tor on PBS NewsHour, stat­ed the prob­lem very pre­cise­ly dur­ing the May 8^th broad­cast: “We are stuck in a pseu­do-democ­ra­cy. [Voters] care more about their par­ty than their country…more than democracy.”

That is a sad and fright­en­ing con­clu­sion about the bat­tle over dis­trict­ing now, yet it seems hor­ri­bly accurate.

But it is more than the vot­ers who are at fault. It is easy to see the same mal­a­dy affect­ing leg­is­la­tors at both the state and nation­al levels.

At the state lev­el, those leg­is­la­tures vote to pro­ceed with redis­trict­ing at the President’s behest to advan­tage the par­ty in power.

At the nation­al lev­el, rep­re­sen­ta­tives and sen­a­tors fail to hon­or their pledge to fair­ly rep­re­sent the peo­ple by pass­ing fed­er­al leg­is­la­tion or by propos­ing a con­sti­tu­tion­al amendment.

Since SCOTUS has declared fed­er­al courts pow­er­less, it falls to Congress to cre­ate fair, hon­est, and non­par­ti­san dis­trict­ing require­ments based sole­ly on con­cise, con­gru­ent pop­u­la­tion distributions.

One has only to exam­ine the pro­posed dis­trict­ing map pre­sent­ed by the League of Women Voters of Kentucky pri­or to the 2021 adopt­ed map to see how pop­u­la­tion-based dis­trict­ing can be accomplished.

As long as the pow­er to estab­lish vot­ing dis­tricts lies with state leg­is­la­tures, the maps will always be drawn to favor the par­ty in pow­er, whether Democratic or Republican, rather than the people.

It has been opined that peo­ple are no longer choos­ing their rep­re­sen­ta­tives, but rather the oth­er way around.

Regrettably, it seems to be true. And when vot­ers fail to rec­og­nize this, democ­ra­cy dies.