Ten Miles Square

Blog

October 16, 2012 12:05 PM Gerrymandering! Booga booga!

By Seth Masket

I was a bit annoyed with Robert Draper’s Atlantic article about redistricting. I mean, it does a decent job explaining redistricting’s history, some modern innovations in redistricting technology, and Texas’ recent drama with redistricting. And it nicely describes the confluence of events — a Republican takeover of several statehouses right after a census — that made this most recent round of redistrictings so potentially consequential.

But Draper keeps throwing in scary terms (“league of dangerous mapmakers,” “nastiest form of politics,” “435 impregnable garrisons,” etc.) to explain a routine constitutional requirement that actually isn’t all that scary. And the article seems to gloss over the fact that the style of redistricting typically portrayed as the scariest — when the majority party seeks to seize more seats by marginalizing minority party voters — inevitably creates more moderate, competitive districts. (Jon Winburn, Gerry Wright and I made this point in an article in PS this year. Also see Eric McGhee’s recent post on this topic.)

When the whole effort to paint legal and political battles over a handful of congressional seats fails to actually seem like the undoing of the Republic, the article turns to an interview with former Rep. John Tanner, a Tennessee Blue Dog Democrat. Tanner is one of those moderates who used to be in Congress and now laments the partisanship that has completely polarized the institution. He points out some significant problems with an overly partisan government, such as the failure of Congress to provide adequate oversight of the executive branch when it is controlled by the same party as the president. But then he inexplicably attributes that to redistricting.

Draper asks him if outside group funding of campaigns, rather than redistricting, might be polarizing politics. That’s when Tanner goes off the rails:

“That’s part of the problem,” Tanner conceded when I asked him about the super-PAC ads flooding the airwaves. “But you can trace how the members got here back to gerry­mandering. I don’t give a damn how much money you spend. These guys are gonna be responsive to the people that elected them, to avoid a party primary. And so they come here to represent their political party, not their district or their country. That attitude has infected the Senate, too. Look at Orrin Hatch,” he said, referring to the veteran Utah senator who fought off a primary challenge from an ultra­conservative. “Now you’d think he was an original member of the Tea Party. It makes you sick to see him grovel.”

Yes, Tanner is citing the example of Orrin Hatch to make a point about redistricting’s pernicious effects on partisanship. That would be the Orrin Hatch who’s in the U.S. Senate and who represents the entire state of Utah, whose borders have never been redrawn.

Draper at least throws in a brief acknowledgement that “some redistricting experts” see districts as having largely polarized themselves, but it’s almost a throwaway sentence. The debate toward the end of article is between those who believe redistricting is the source of partisanship and those who believe advertising is, even though neither argument makes much sense.

[Cross-posted at Mischiefs of Faction]

Seth Masket is an associate professor of political science at the University of Denver.
tags

Comments

  • Crissa on October 16, 2012 3:08 PM:

    I know I wasn't happy with the California redistricting... Some genius thought that the Assembly, Senate, and Representative districts should mostly overlap - my town is used as a connector between silicon valley and Pajaro valley. Which wouldn't be so bad - if it were one of the three. As it is, instead, my town is randomly cut off from the nearest grocery store and newspaper, our river is cut in half, and the farmers are disenfranchised.

    None of the districts represent our watershed as a whole. None of the districts connect just the redwoods and coastal areas or just the urban areas or just the farm areas. Instead, all three try to blend the deep urban core with the high rural as far as Big Sur. Sure, San Mateo's western side and our town has the same concerns as Big Sur - but that's not where the line is. Instead, it cuts off the tourists towns and San Mateo and gives them to a silicon valley districts; and the one that represents Big Sur and us connects the richest areas, silencing the poor tenant farmers.

    What happened for us was that the commission didn't have enough money to consider each area and change. Which was frustrating, but understandable. So I'm in the unenviable position of having to vote to support a result I'm upset with.