Desperate Democrats consider using a new — and old — weapon

Yahoo

a day ago

Growing up, it was my general understanding that the congressional redistricting process was always done every ten years, following the latest Census. I knew that, in the past, seats had often been drawn to exclude representation for racial minorities, which was one of the motives for passing the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. (Earlier this week, Senate Democrats again introduced legislation that would restore the provision, which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013, requiring states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing legislative maps and voting laws. As the bill stands little chance of passing, it is little more than symbolic.)
But generally, I assumed these disparities were being addressed, however sporadically, and the country was actually moving toward non-partisan redistricting to create districts that fairly and democratically reflected the various characteristics and interests of a given state as accurately as possible.
I finally realized that notion was absurdly naive back in 2003, when it became clear that we were embarking on a period of electoral warfare. Texas had called a special session to enact a new redistricting plan. Under the leadership of the powerful Republican House Whip Tom 'The Hammer' Delay and Republican Gov. Rick Perry, the Texas GOP decided they would redraw the House maps after growing their majority in the 2002 midterm elections. As Michael Li of the Brennan Center explained, it was a shocking partisan power grab that gained national attention for its chutzpah — but it was at least somewhat justifiable. Through a series of legal and legislative flukes, the Texas maps then in use dated back to 1990, and they favored what had been a Democratic majority that had since moved decisively Republican. Still, voluntarily redistricting again within two years was pretty much unheard of, and it signaled that the Republican Party was changing the rules.
That was child's play compared to what the GOP is now attempting, using the Trump Justice Department's favorite fatuous anti-DEI rationale — that white people's civil rights are being violated by any policy that takes race into consideration. In this case, Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans, at the encouragement of President Donald Trump, claim that the minority-majority districts that provide for people of color to have representation is a racist policy. This is a particularly rich contention, considering the Lone Star State repeatedly insisted during its last redistricting in 2021, and in the legal fights that followed, that its new congressional map was 'race blind.'
Consistency, as we have learned, is not a requirement in Republican legal battles. If that were the case, Amy Coney Barrett would not be on the Supreme Court today.
If all goes to plan, the Texas GOP will be given five more ruby red districts for the 2026 midterms, which will likely eliminate at least four seats currently held by racial minorities. As Li explains:
Under the current Texas congressional map, Republicans already win 25 of 38 congressional districts — two-thirds of seats. That's a sizable advantage in a state where Republicans don't get nearly that share of the vote — Ted Cruz running for re-election in 2025 got just barely 53 percent of the vote. And none of the GOP seats were competitive in 2024.
In other words, Republicans will be all but guaranteed to have 30 out of the state's 38 seats — or 80% of the Texas congressional delegation.
However grotesque this attempt to maintain power by any means necessary might be, partisan gerrymandering isn't a new thing; it's been part of the American system from the beginning. The very first Virginia congressional maps in 1788 were drawn to ensure that James Madison, the Federalist candidate, would face James Monroe, an anti-Federalist, who would, it was thought, win. It didn't work. Madison won.
Twenty-four years later, the term 'gerrymander' was coined when the Democratic-Republican Party drew a salamander-shaped state Senate district to benefit Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry. The Boston Gazette published an iconic cartoon called the 'The Gerry-mander,' and the rest is history.
There's no point in pretending that this undemocratic practice wasn't one of many undemocratic design flaws by our vaunted founders. (In their defense, the whole concept of 'districts' was brand new at the time, and some states actually elected their representatives at large.) After Reconstruction several decades later, states were electing their representatives through single-member districts. Partisan loyalties were strong; Democrats and Republicans were polarized, making gerrymandering more effective and essential.
Sound familiar? Today, with the help of technology, these districts can be drawn with maximum efficiency, down to the last detail. The map produced for approval this week by Texas Republicans is a masterful example of how to do that without endangering their incumbents.
So yes, America has been dealing with these flagrantly political shenanigans from our very first election. But you'd think, by now, we could have found a way to make this system truly democratic and fair by now without such partisan maneuvering.
Some states have taken serious steps to do that by enacting laws that require commissions to redraw the lines after the decennial census, or by using computer models. Unfortunately, most of those states are run by Democrats, who are left at a disadvantage when Republicans resort to using hardball tactics. (Some Democratic states, too, have divided legislatures, which often results in the courts being involved in the redistricting process, preventing them from producing a partisan advantage along the lines of what the Texas GOP has in mind.)
Nonetheless, the big blue states of California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and a few others are considering fighting fire with fire by changing their redistricting procedures to allow partisan gerrymandering that would, they hope, offset Republican gains in other states. Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York oppose gerrymandering in theory, but in practice they also recognize we are dealing with a crisis of democracy. Newsom announced on Thursday that he had spoken with Democratic lawmakers in California about the possibility of a special election this November for voters to weigh in on redistricting. In a remarkable shift, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who started an organization devoted to ending partisan gerrymandering, said Democrats should follow suit, arguing that the Texas plan threatens democracy.
Of course, it's always possible that Democrats could pull out a large enough win in the popular vote in those states that the GOP's plans would be foiled. Data journalist G. Elliott Morris, who has analyzed the current polling, reported that Democrats currently lead in the generic ballot and would likely win 230 House seats if the election were held today, giving them the majority. The Texas gerrymandering scheme would reduce that number to 225, but Democrats would still win.
The midterms are still 15 months away, so it's early days yet. Democrats are not yet done licking their wounds from 2024, and the party is just beginning to show stirrings of life. In his report, Morris pointed out an historical trend: Even though voters may hate a party's brand, it doesn't mean they won't vote for it. With the party's approval ratings at historic lows, that is one of the few rays of light Democrats can claim at the moment.
Over the next year, they will have their work cut out for them.
The post Desperate Democrats consider using a new — and old — weapon appeared first on Salon.com.