The pros and cons of gerrymandering

The term gerrymander came into existence in 1812 from Eldridge Gerry. Gerry, governor of Massachusetts at the time, was lampooned when his party redistricted the state in a blatant bid to preserve an Antifederalist majority. One Essex County district resembled a salamander, and a newspaper editor dubbed it gerrymander (online etymology Dictionary, 2010).

Today's definition of the term hasn't changed that much. It's defined as changing the boundaries of legislative districts to favor one party over another (dictionary.com).

Typically the dominant party in a state legislature, which is responsible for drawing the boundaries of congressional districts, will try to concentrate the opposing party's strength in as few districts as possible, while giving itself likely majorities in as many districts as possible (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third edition, 2005).

Many people, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of gerrymandering, claiming that to the victor goes the spoils. The other side counters that argument with their own.

For example, in the off-year elections of 2014 in Michigan, Republicans increased their majority in the Michigan House of Representatives by three seats to 63 while the Democrats had 47. Out of the 14 congressional races, Republicans won nine. So a logical person would assume that tally reflected a Republican majority state-wide expressing the will of the people. But that would be wrong. Democrats actually received 50,000 more votes out of 3 million cast statewide. So this raises the question, do the districts drawn by the legislators reflect the sentiment and goals of voters statewide? The party in power typically says yes, the party out of power usually says no.

Does gerrymandering always help the party in power who drew the district lines to begin with? Nebraska is a good example. We have three congressional districts in Nebraska and there is a legitimate belief that one of those will be eliminated after the 2020 census. According to Michel Barone and Chuck McCutcheon, writing for The Almanac of American Politics, congressional boundaries can generate strong feelings in Nebraska if only because it is one of just two states (Maine is the other) where Electoral College votes are apportioned by congressional district.

Continuing to quote Barone and McCutcheon, they contend that the unicameral is technically nonpartisan but, in reality, Republicans have long controlled the process. Their top priority was to shore up the Omaha 2nd district, not only because President Obama had narrowly carried it by 3,370 votes in 2008, but because Republican Lee Terry was nearly defeated the same year. So in May 2011, the unicameral passed a redistricting plan trading politically mixed Bellevue and Offutt Air Base south of Omaha to the 1st district in exchange for the deeply Republican western half of Sarpy County, making the 2nd about a percentage point safer overall. To give neighboring Jeff Fortenberry extra insurance, legislators also shifted very conservative Platte County from the 3rd to the 1st. To offset the move, the 3rd district now stretches from Wyoming to Missouri and Iowa and includes all or part of 75 counties, more than any other congressional district in the country.

But in spite of these gerrymandered Republican efforts, the challenger from the Democrats, Brad Ashford, defeated Terry in the 2014 election for District 2.

So gerrymandering doesn't always work the way the party wants it to but on the other hand, it's not for lack of trying. Very few states leave the legislature left out of the redistricting process altogether. One that does is California. California has an independent commission that handles redistricting. People on the commission are not allowed to run for office in the districts they draw and legislative staff members and lobbyists are barred from serving on the commission.

Some political experts contend that gerrymandering is the single most important cause of congressmen and women being re-elected over and over because the districts were drawn to benefit their party. The current election cycle is the most volatile election year that I've ever experienced, but this premise will hold true again with a significant majority of those running for re-election to Congress winning. In The United States Senate, where each state gets two Senators and the voting is statewide, voting patterns are considerably different.

Nate Silver, who called every state correctly during the 2012 election cycle, says that the Democrats have a 66% chance of winning enough new seats to wrest control of the Senate from Republicans. Congressmen tend to keep their seats, Senators are much more likely to lose theirs because how they're elected or defeated is different.

Certainly there has to be a more fair and equitable way to determine district boundaries that is also non-partisan in nature, favoring neither the Republicans or the Democrats, and it is incumbent on those who want congressional districts to reflect the will of ALL the people to find it.