390 Chapter 11 | CongressIn theory, redistricting proceeds from a set of principles that define what districts
should look like. One criterion is that districts should be roughly equal in population
based on the principles of “one-person, one-vote” established by the Supreme Court in
the 1960s.^20 They should also reflect “communities of interest,” grouping like-minded
voters into the same district. There are also technical criteria, including compactness
(districts should not have extremely bizarre shapes) and contiguity (one part of a
district cannot be completely separated from the rest of the district). Mapmakers also
try to respect traditional natural boundaries, avoid splitting municipalities, preserve
existing districts, and avoid diluting the voting power of racial minorities.Partisan Redistricting Although the preceding principles are important, they are
not the driving force in the redistricting process. Suppose a Democrat holds a House
seat from an urban district populated mainly by citizens with strong Democratic Party
ties. After a census, the Republican-dominated state legislature develops a new plan
that extends the representative’s district into the suburbs, claiming that the change
counteracts population declines within the city by adding suburban voters. However,
these suburban voters will likely be Republicans, increasing the chance that the
Democrat will face strong opposition in future elections and maybe lose his or her seat.
Such changes have an important impact on voters as well. Voters who are “shifted” to a
new district by a change in boundaries may be unable to vote for the incumbent they have
supported for years and may instead get a representative who doesn’t share their views.
In congressional redistricting, a reduction in the number of seats allocated to a state
can lead to districting plans that put two incumbents in the same district, forcing them
to run against each other. Incumbents from one party use these opportunities to defeat
incumbents from the other party. Both parties use this technique and other tools of
creative cartography to gain partisan advantage.
These attempts to use the redistricting process for political advantage are called
gerrymandering. The term is named after Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts House
member and governor, vice president under James Madison, and author of the original
partisan redistricting plan in 1812 (including a district with a thin, winding shape
resembling a salamander). While partisan motivations have produced some funny-
looking districts (see Nuts & Bolts 11.1 for examples of a partisan gerrymander and
redistricting strategies), the courts have allowed the practice to continue until recently.
More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering may be
unconstitutional, but over the next three decades the Court struggled to find a standard
that allowed it to distinguish between partisan bias so extreme that it violated the
Constitution and normal partisan politics.^21
Then, from 2016 through 2018, a flood of litigation in federal and state courts showed
judges’ increasing willingness to rule that parties had gone too far in their redistricting
plans. Increasingly sophisticated mapping programs and access to detailed political
data allowed parties to slice and dice districts with increasing precision, yielding
partisan maps that were no longer acceptable to the courts. In Wisconsin, North
Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania federal and state courts struck down state
legislative and congressional maps that they ruled to be unfairly partisan (see the Take a
Stand feature for more on the debate on this topic). However, in June 2018, the Supreme
Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, instead
referring the Wisconsin and Maryland cases back to the lower courts.^22 Cases from those
two states, and probably North Carolina and Michigan, may make their way back to the
Supreme Court in time for the 2020 congressional elections.Racial Redistricting Redistricting may yield boundaries that look highly unusual.
During the 1992 redistricting process in North Carolina, the Justice Department told
state legislators that they needed to create two districts with majority populations ofgerrymandering
Attempting to use the process of
re-drawing district boundaries to
benefit a political party, protect
incumbents, or change the proportion
of minority voters in a district.Full_12_APT_64431_ch11_374-417.indd 390 16/11/18 10:30 AM