Gerrymandering: A New Era of Re-districting Battles [Podcast]

States have increasingly come under pressure from President Trump to redraw district voting lines now even though they are traditionally redrawn every 10 years in response to the census. In response, Democratic strongholds like California are also taking steps to redraw maps out of cycle. Our guests today are both keeping a close eye on such “gerrymandering” efforts. Duke professor Jonathan Mattingly teaches a course on the topic and was involved in a gerrymandering challenge that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. Asher Hildebrand had a front row seat to the redistricting process as a longtime congressional staff member. He now teaches courses on American democracy and politics. Our host for this episode is Phil Napoli, director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy at Duke.

Conversation Highlights

Responses have been edited for clarity.

On why fair maps matter

Mattingly: I think one of the main conversations (should be) about responsiveness of representatives. (We need) a democracy where representatives are responsive to the changing will of the people. We asked ourselves, "In the current Congress, what fraction of representatives under reasonable circumstances could expect -- because of a swing of public opinion – (to) lose their seat.” Now, there are parts of the state where that will never happen, and there are states in the union where so-and-so will never lose their seat. I don't think Durham will ever elect a Republican. I don't think the far Western corner of (North Carolina) will ever elect a Democrat. That being said, there should be some (places where) elections have consequences, which means (elected officials) actually have to listen to their constituents.

We found that when you make non-partisan districts, you (more than) double the number of seats in the Congress where (representatives) are responsive. Not even talking about right or left, just -- can the people change their mind and change the representative effectively. 

If you actually try to legislate (this idea, ie:) let's make our districts so that we value responsiveness, you almost triple the number of seats which are responsive. Imagine a Congress where three times as many people were worried about losing their seat if they didn't do things that the people liked. I think right and left, center, libertarian or socialist, I think we would all agree that that sounds like a much better government than the one we currently have.

On the lack of federal intervention

Image

Hildebrand: For decades some states continued to gerrymander, but they did so under the credible threat of the federal courts intervening. Since the Rucho V. Common Cause case in 2019, which took the federal courts entirely out of the game of policing partisan gerrymandering states have been freer to say, "We are gerrymandering…there’s nothing you can do about it."

Mattingly: Both sides (of the Supreme Court) said in their rulings that (gerrymandering) was a problem for the country. (But) they just left it to the states to decide. So, there was a big discussion in the states and many states ruled against it (in court). And only states where there are processes to check gerrymandering -- often the ones that have citizen referendums -- can people stand up and say, "We don't like gerrymandering." And Democrats and Republicans, both sides, when there is the ability to do that over and over again, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, they all come in and they say, "We're going to stand up and outlaw gerrymandering."

Is GERRYMANDERING BECOMING the NORM?

Mattingly: When you poll people and ask whether they support gerrymandering, they don't. They're against it, historically

Hildebrand: And nowhere is that more striking than at the current moment. You have Texas, then California, and now other states including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, maybe Florida, considering a mid-decade gerrymandering. There are about 11 states, including North Carolina, which barring court rulings, constitutionally prohibit mid-decade redistricting. No state legislature (until now) has thought it would be wise to pursue redistricting in the middle of the decade.

Those norms are now out the window, thanks in part to the President of the United States asking for this, but also to democratic governors like Gavin Newsom (California) and JB Pritzker (Illinois) now saying: "The gloves are off. We're not going to sit on the sidelines and watch this power grab on the other side. So, we're going to do the same thing here."

should we just accept that gerrymandering will happen?

Hildebrand: Gerrymandering has existed in this country since the very first Congress when Patrick Henry tried unsuccessfully to gerrymander James Madison out of a district. And because of that, there's often this kind of fatalism that surrounds it. This is how things always are, they're always going to be this way, this is the natural order of things in American democracy.

I think it is really important that we not give into that fatalism because that may have been true for much of our history, but since the 1960s or so states around the country have enacted reforms through the legislative process. It would be a real tragedy if we wipe out that history overnight just because we think it's the way things have always been.

Jonathan Mattingly is a mathematics, statistical science and new technology professor at Duke, with research in quantifying gerrymandering. He has played a role in several landmark cases involving North Carolina’s re-districting process. Asher Hildebrand is an American democracy and politics professor of the practice at the Sanford School. Asher also directs the new executive Masters of Public Affairs program at Duke.