Normally, we might need fancy computer modeling to prove whether some legislature is trying some sneaky gerrymandering to gain or retain seats. Nowadays they just come right out and tell us that they’re subverting our will.
As Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are busy attempting to rewrite congressional district lines in response to a similar move by Texas, voters are left on the sideline wondering how our politicians find it so easy to blatantly infringe on our right to representation.
What the Texas Legislature is doing is indefensible – gerrymandering necessarily involves taking portions of the electorate and rendering their voices impotent. It’s an unsubtle move that sacrifices our right to choose members of Congress for the sake of their power.
On the other hand, California Democrats claim that they have to respond with their own revised maps in order to prevent the Trump-submissive Republicans from unjustly expanding their hold on the House. Nevermind that Californians voted for Proposition 11 (the Voters FIRST Act) back in 2008, which took the power to determine congressional district lines away from the state legislature and gave it to an independent commission.
A silver-lining, if there is one, is that at least Californians will have a choice in November about whether to allow Newsom to erode their voting rights – it’s also meant to be temporary. According to Republican critics, Newsom’s gambit is bad because it subverts democracy. Yes, yes it does, doesn’t it? The new Texas maps do what exactly?
There’s already an overwhelming contingent of Democrats representing Californians in the House – about 43 to 9 Republicans. That’s about 17%, which is moderately skewed given that Republicans only make up about 24.7% of registered voters in California.
If all goes according to plan for Newsom, and the seats actually end up flipping during the midterms, it will result in Republican representatives only making up about 8% of California representatives in Congress – Republican Californians will go without proper representation in Congress.
What Texas is doing is even worse. Democrats make up over 46% of voters (by voting patterns; Texas voters do not register with a party affiliation), even outnumbering Republicans at 37%. Yet, only 31% of US House members from Texas are Democrats. If all goes according to plan for Governor Greg Abbott and President Trump, that number will fall to 18%. It’s not the first time Texas has gerrymandered their districts mid-decade: they concocted partisan lines back in 2003, which expanded their delegation in the House.
As observers, we’re left to determine whether it’s worse to allow retaliatory partisan gerrymandering at our expense or to allow Trump to expand his hold on Congress. Allowing Trump to grow his influence in Congress is simply worse for our democracy than allowing California Republican representation to suffer – recall the military occupation in Los Angeles and D.C., that one instance in 2021 where he tried to overturn the elections, and his current efforts to hijack the next elections.
These efforts aren’t just a subversion of voter desires, they lay waste to suffrage. If the Democrats are able to flip the House in the next midterm elections, we’ll all gain a much needed check on Trump’s ambitions.
This is by no means a desirable state of affairs. We’re simply strapped with a choice between getting shot in the leg or amputating it.
Defending gerrymandering is truly an awful position to be in. To be honest, I don’t state much of this with a high degree of confidence. Partisan redistricting has been a major problem that has been practiced out in the open and California is one of only a few states with independent redistricting commissions (depending on how you define independent).
It should go without saying that we should prevent our representative democracy’s deterioration when one state decides to redistrict in such a clear power grab, which then forces a response from other states, only further damaging representation. There should be nationwide legislation that mandates fully independent redistricting commissions – for now, it’s too late.
According to some, gerrymandering isn’t the problem that we all believe it to be anymore. William A. Galston, writing for the Brookings Institution claimed that because the proportion of House seats occupied by a given party roughly corresponds to the number of voters who support that party nationwide, that the gerrymandering practiced by both parties almost entirely cancels out.
Even if it were true that gerrymandering cancels out when we zoom out and look at the nation as a whole, this sterile analysis misses the central problem: individual people in gerrymandered districts lose their voice.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group.