Democrats’ strategy on redistricting: good government or ruthless revenge?

In the aftermath of last year’s Supreme Court ruling limiting challenges to gerrymandering, Democrats are torn between two very different and viable approaches to reapportionment. One cuts legislators out of the process, the other is payback.

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 in the redistricting case, essentially saying that federal courts have no business in partisan gerrymandering. The ruling bluntly stated that this battle does not belong in the courts and that victims of reapportionment will be left to seek political remedies.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

Roberts qualified that “our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering,” but that is like closing the windows and saying “we don’t condone stale air.” The ruling is so broad, that even racist gerrymandering is off limits to federal courts.

Now, Democrats are fast approaching a familiar fork in the road with redistricting: good government, or revenge.

The 2020 Census data will be used to redraw every House district in the country. This means we will have all new districts by 2022. There will be pressure within both parties to employ sophisticated, computer-enhanced and creative gerrymandering. Hyper-charging the political tension will be states gaining or losing seats based on population changes–opening up opportunities and threats to both parties.

Redrawing the district boundaries have traditionally been done by state legislators with the governor approving or vetoing their plans.

Democrats have been at a severe disadvantage in recent years. Republicans enjoyed more states with trifectas — majorities in the state legislature (both chambers) and the governor’s office. With this control comes gerrymandering — redrawing the lines to maximize party strength.

But in the last two years, there’s been a dramatic shift toward the Democratic Party. Voters have broken up Republican trifectas by electing more legislators and governors and creating new trifectas of their own — nine since Donald Trump was elected.

However, Democrats are still behind. They have 15 trifecta states, compared with 21 controlled by Republicans.

Revenge

A growing number of Democrats are out for blood.

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have riled up the Democratic grass roots with widespread corruption and hard-right positions on everything from abortion to climate change. This no-compromise approach has provoked a similar reaction within the Democratic party.

And with new trifectas, Democrats have more opportunities to inflict painful gerrymandering right back on the Republicans.

That would most likely take place in Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Maine. These states have Democratic trifectas and legislators draw the new lines.

Gerrymandering would be the stick-it-to-’em approach as payback for Republican’s computerized and racist hyper-gerrymandering.

Good Government

Turning to the other shoulder, let’s look at the good government angel. This option takes the process out of the hands of self-interested legislators and gives it to an independent redistricting commission. Proponents say it creates fairer district boundaries and more competitive seats.

For reform-minded Democrats, this is a great way to correct built in conflicts-of-interest: legislators creating their own comfy districts.

Some have argued that these more competitive congressional districts mean more moderate or centrist representation, as candidates will likely have to make appeals to the other party’s voters.

This may make it less popular with progressives and ultraconservatives, but the independent route has proven appealing to voters in both red and blue states. In 2018, five states voted to create them.

These commissions now exist in 10 states — all but one are in the West. They are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Washington. It’s not a lopsidedly Democratic or Republican group, but rather an interesting mix of deep red, deep blue and purple states.

Democrats shouldn’t assume an independent redistricting commission would hurt them. It was California, with just such a commission, where Democrats won 7 competitive seats from the Republicans in 2018. More competitive seats mean more opportunities for both parties.

How each party responds to an independent commision largely depends on which party is in control. For instance, in Missouri, where the Republicans have a trifecta, they are trying to undermine the independent commission. But in Democratic Virginia, Republican legislators voted unanimously in March for an independent commission.

Missouri

Missouri voters approved an independent redistricting commission in 2018 with 62% voting in favor.

That amendment, smartly coined Clean Missouri, was supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder’s group, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Their strategy is to get redistricting initiatives passed at the ballot box while simultaneously helping elect more Democratic state legislators, governors and judges.

This week, Republican legislators advanced a bill to gut the law.

Virginia

Last year nearly 3 dozen Democratic lawmakers in Virginia voted for a constitutional amendment creating an independent commission. This year, with a new Democratic trifecta in power only 9 Democrats voted for the commission — joining Republicans to pass the measure 54 to 46. Some Democrats who switched their vote said the earlier vote was “a mistake.”

Whatever approach is taken, the Democrats will have a stronger hand at the redistricting table this time around, thanks to recent gains at the ballot box. This comes just as the Supreme Court has washed their hands of the process.