You'll recall a few weeks ago, we talked about how gerrymandering gave Republicans a big advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even though more people in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania voted for Democrats, the state delegations to the 113th Congress tilts decidedly in favor of Republicans.
It turns out the same phenomena occurred in the state legislatures, several of which are now coming into session.
Take Michigan, for example. Democrats got 340,000 more votes than Republicans, but they somehow ended up with 8 fewer seats in the state House:
H/t again to Mother Jones for getting this rolling. After the jump, the results in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The results were just as dramatic in Wisconsin. Democrats walked away with almost 172,000 more votes from the November election, but they are represented by 21 fewer delegates in the State Assembly.
In Ohio 57,000 more people voted for Democrats, but Democrats won fewer seats.
Same story in Pennsylvania where Democrats lost by 2 percent of the vote, but have 8 percent less representation in the state House.
Leave a Comment:
WE need federal requirements and an inability for those in Congress to gerrymander their districts period - and that's not a partisan statement!
Actually, it IS a partisan statement, but only because commitment to democracy and indeed to basic fairness is now a "liberal position" to which the conservatives are completely opposed.
Alan's statement might be dismissed by many as hyperbolic, but if you look at institutions that are heavily populated by conservatives, you will find a direct correlation with autocratic forms of governance.
Take Christian church governance for example. Something unreported in the news is that in churches across America in the early weeks of January, new budgets are voted on, new leadership in churches are decided. For many, there is no vote from from members of the congregation (eg- it is explicit autocracy in the Catholic churches (Eastern and Western, as well as the near catholic protestants- the Lutherans and Anglicans ("Episcopalians" in the US). For the remaining more laity-oriented Protestant churches, the democratic process are nearly all shams, and the vote is simply a rubber stamp for predetermined policy and new leaders decided by an individual or group of individuals in whom absolute power is concentrated.
If nearly all churches find democracy unpalatable, why should we be at all surprised that Christian fundamentalists and the Right Wing are at war with the very idea of Democracy in America?
Alan...if the Democrats were completely blameless in the situation, you comment might be valid. But since BOTH parties are guilty of gerrymandering the HOR districts when they have the power in a particular state, then BOTH parties need to take blame.
just saying...
Stormguy, simply from a cynical perspective, the DEMs can afford to eliminate gerrymandering because their demographics are ascendant. The GOP has come to the realization that their party is in decline, and so cannot afford to be magnanimous.
Regardless who wins the false equivalency war, assuming both sides agree to eliminate Gerrymandering, what is the best way? The conventional/ naive approach is to appoint bi partisan commissions.
Another approach is to recognize that wasting votes is fundamentally un democratic.
One method is to assign the otherwise "wasted" votes to "At large" representatives. I personally favor eliminating districts altogether, though some countries have gone for a mix of regional and "at large" representation to address this problem. Voting uses ranked choices- The form invented in the 19th century and in use in many places including Australia is known as Single Transferable Vote.
Besides eliminating gerrymandering, it makes greater political expression possible since third parties do not create a spoiler effect. In the case of Bush v. Clinton, assuming Perot's support was largely GOP, the votes "wasted" on him would have gone to Bush, and Clinton would have lost. I favor it because I favor more extremely progressive candidates. You might favor it because it would allow candidates closer to your (presumably more conservative) way of thinking. This means that fundamentalist or libertarian candidates might lose in every districts of a state, but with choice voting, the state might send one or two out of a couple dozen representatives.
This does not require a constitutional amendment because the constitution already states that Congress may set the rules for how its representatives are chosen. Historically, Congress has not asserted this authority and allowed the states to decide the mechanism in their own idiosyncratic ways.
The current abuse provides good motivation for aggressive reform.
I think we should give the problem of how to redistrict over to places like MIT. No doubt they could come up with some sort of nonjudgmental algorithm (says the mathematically challenged me) to redraw district lines. They have 7 years. Bet some of them already have something. Then we could add it to a Federal voter's rights law.
Very simple solution in about 95% of the cases...take the state population...divide it by the number of districts within the state. That gives you the average number of constituents per district. Draw district lines along county borders based on population of the county.
MIT is not needed...
just saying...
for those conservatives that cling to the principles of the constitution and the founding fathers - - - this is not in any way shape or form what they would approve of . . . but I guess if it give you an advantage . . .
This would not be a problem if they were still "your father's Republicans."
Sadly, too many are ignorant zealots who have no idea of what 'teh constitution' really says.
The teapubs are always waving the flag and the Constitution around. They love the Constitution so much they always want to change it or at least the meaning of it. They just need to read the first line of the Constitution. It says We The People, not we the party or we the rich or we the corporations.
Just like the Bible, the GOP interprets the Constitution to fit their own needs, and ignore the parts that they can't understand or use to their advantage.
Thank you KJ!!! My congressman was re-elected for a 6th term because most feel he is a constitutional conservative and a man of the good book. Yet proposes legislation to change the 14th, eliminate the 16th, votes consistently to limit our 7th amendment rights and curtail our 1st. He even threatened a lawsuit against the President calling the failure to enforce a congressional enactment unconstitutional. At the same time uses the good book to justify positions on descriminatory practices but refuses to get equally huffy against fellow republicans for violating multiple of God's top ten...yet folks in his district refuse to listen, learn or even attempt to validate these self-evident truths because voting for anything other than an "R" would be tantamount to treason...against their America and God himself.
From answers.com - why are we not suing in court under these precedents to get this straightened out?
Baker v. Carr, (1962) was the first of a series of Supreme Court cases of the early 60s that established the federal judiciary's right to determine the constitutionality of legislative districting within a state (the allocation of state and federal representatives to voters).
Background
Charles Baker and a group of other voters brought legal action against the State of Tennessee in US District Court under (42 USC §§ 1983, 1986), Civil action for deprivation of rights. Their suit alleged that a 1901 state statute apportioned representatives of the Tennessee General Assembly arbitrarily and was in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. According to Baker et al., the formula being used under the 1901 law ignored economic and population growth centers, resulting in a situation where less populated voting districts were over-represented, while heavily populated districts were under represented.
In a 6-2 opinion favoring Baker, the Court noted that, prior to 1901, the state had conducted a voter count by county, and distributed representation equally according to the number of voters in a given area. The Tennessee Constitution required the legislature follow a particular formula for apportionment of representatives, but the General Assembly ignored this mandate when they passed the 1901 statute.
Justice Brennan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, held that the District Court had jurisdiction over the case because Baker's claim rested on the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Further, the nature of the case was such that it could never be fairly resolved by legislature and required the intervention of the judiciary to ensure relief. The case was justicable.
The Court outlined a six-part test for determining which cases were political (matters for the legislature), rather than judicial (matters for the court).
Legislative Issues
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.
Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties were often drastically underrepresented.
The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote". In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."
The Wisconsin numbers are wrong. There are 99 (59 R, 39 D, 1 vacancy) members of the Assembly and 33 (18R, 15D) members of the State Senate. Thank you
Thanks, Ben. I'll take a look.
Gee, and I live in Utah! I think it's even worse here. Gerrymandering should not be allowed! I ran for the state house of representatives this year, so I know what the Republican legislature did to the democratic process in Utah.
and I know what the Democrat legislature has done to the democratic process in NC in years pass by gerrymandering districts to their benefit.
BOTH parties are guilty...
just saying...
Why doesn't our Attorney General persue these outrageous politicians?
Why are they allowed to do pretty much anything they want?
I thought gerrymandering was illegal.
This is the way the game is played. Democrats have to learn to play it the same way. In states like California and Oregon, in our part of the country, they haven't done that. Republicans, who are a distinct minority in these states, whine about "a lack of bipartisanship" in the redistricting process. So what do Dems do? They want to appear reasonable, so they work to make the system more nonpartisan in order to mollify them.
The result is what you see in the U. S. Congress and in the legislatures of those states. California Republicans have been able to gum up the works because they're overrepresented in the state Assembly and Senate. In Oregon, the Dems used their substantial majority of voters to achieve a 30-30 House and a near tie (16-14) in the Senate. It's time for this nonsense to stop, at least until Republicans are willing to have nonpartisan commissions make redistricting decisions is all states.
Republicans were savvy enough to get control of these processes in key states in 2010. Democrats have to be aggressive about retaking control of them in 2018 and 2020, when Secretary of State positions will be contested and state legislative seats are up for grabs. If they don't, shame on them.
Grow a spine, Dems. Or buy a pair of brass knuckles.
Republicans have never been non-partisan or even bi-partisan, they just use that as a whining point when they are in the minority. You are absolutely correct when you point out that Democrats in those states worked and organized hard to achieve political dominance in those states you mentioned and a few others.
I hope Democrats in the states Rachel has pointed out get some "savvy" leaders to regain their majority position by the next Gerrymandering legislative session.
Actually, when we changed redistricting in California to make it less partisan, the result was the death of the Republican Party in California as anything beyond the regional Party of the Morons, er, I mean the Mormons, in northern San Diego County and the Party of the Okies in the Central Valley; they don't even have Orangutang County anymore. We threw more Republicans out of Congress than all other states, they have no representation in any statewide office and no likelihood of changing that. We're as close to wingnut-free as you can get without shipping them all to Arizona and Utah and Idaho. We have 2/3 Democratic majorities in both State Assembly and Senate, which means they can't gum anything up anymore and we can finally get our financial house in order.
When you get redistricting reform, you get rid of Republicans. Which is why they oppose it like they do.
TC . . . Republicans are the ones who push for reform in the reapportionment process--in states controlled by Democrats only, of course.
You're right that the 2012 elections went well for Dems, because they did what they didn't do in 2010--get out and work and vote. No small part of that is due to Obama's GOTV organizing efforts. We'll see what happens in 2014, when that element is missing.
Until 2012, the story was different. The California Legislature was virtually paralyzed because of Republican intransigence. The CCRC (California Citizens Redisctricting Commission) is a whole lot friendlier to Republicans than a partisan legislature and SOS would be. I wouldn't write off the GOP in California. They may be in a state of discombobulation, but they're still very much alive.
You'll notice that there's no big push for nonpartisan redistricting by Republicans in states like Texas, Oklahoma, much of the South and Mid-South, or the Plains states that they control. Nor have they used their newly discovered majorities in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan to make the process more nonpartisan/bipartisan. They're pressing their advantage to the hilt. There's no reason to believe that they won't continue to do so any time they have full control of the process.
The importance of the election before the every decade re-drawing of district boundaries is well known by any historian/political junkie/party activist. The Democratic Party in many of these states just totally dropped the ball when it came to planning and strategizing for that critical election.
We can cry, whine and complain about Gerrymandering but it's over a two century old tradition in the United States. So the real question to ask is why did the Democratic Party screw this up so badly? The Democratic Party has became a lame haphazard random collection of clowns, hangers on and wanabes. The serious art of organizing and using power seems to be lost on this current generation.
Don't you remember? In 2010, many Dems were really ticked off at Obama and the Senate Democrats. They were disgusted at Obama's constant capitulation to the right, and with Harry Reid's weak leadership on the health care overhaul.
They decided--in large numbers--to stay home as a means of registering their disappointment with the Democrats.
That strategy sure worked well for them, didn't it.
Where it can be done (as we did in California) we can get popular ballot reform measures on at statewide elections and change the system to deny both parties the control of choosing their voters. Since the Democrats actually can deliver things people actually want, they can win fair elections - as we proved this time in California after reforming redistricting. We even managed to get rid of Howard Berman, the "Democratic" congressman from Tel Aviv.
How have the Dems allowed this to happen? With basic ideology and basic understanding of morality heavily favored to Dems (by most rational thinking Americans, anyhow) it seems we have been outsmarted and now have a handicap against in these races. Before the first vote is cast, a running Dem is behind the GOP pick? Why are we not heavily questioning our Democratic Reps to ask how they let this happen, and what they will do to undo the damage?
Then again, good luck getting GOP majority houses to vote for fairness and set things back. If I know anything about the current state of GOP reps, fair does not usually enter the conversation.
The point you made is exactly why this happened! It is not ideology or high horse self righteousness of politically correct morality, it is basic wear out your shoes organizing:WORK! It is the mobilizing voter registration that took place when we saw the voter suppression tactics the Republicans were using.
No amount of luck will get GOP to convert to "fairness", it takes effective candidate recruitment in those districts and voter mobilization to throw the bums out!
You don't use ideological whining to do that, you recruit BLUE DOG Democratic businessmen and local common sense community leaders in conjunction with massive voter registration drives and voter mobilization. Replace Republican politicians with people like Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill. You can have the best Turnipseed or Hightower you want but if they don't FIT THE DISTRICT you are not going to remove the GOP.
It is the Democratic Party leaders of the Legislative Campaign Committees and State Party Central Committee Leadership not the elected State Reps who are responsible to make sure this doesn't happen.
I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to end gerrymandering, which will mandate non-partisan commissions to draw legislative districts. I believe we need several other amendments as well, but I'll not go into them here.
Read Article 5 of the US Constitution: I need some of what you are smoking or drinking.
Your proposed Constitutional Amendment requires the very people we are talking about to vote for it, not just a majority vote but a 2/3rd vote in Congress and ratification by 2/3rds of the States.
I just love it when people throw around Constitutional Amendment proposals without even reading Article 5.
So they elect one branch of government that is entirely out of step with the majority's opinions, that has utterly abysmal approval ratings, and whose sole power is to throw monkey wrenches into the works... That SHOULD be unconstitutional.
AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT LEARNED THE LESSON??? WHY, WHY ARE DEMS SUCH IDIOTS?? I really do not understand what needs to be done so that Democrats that get elected do the same thing so that we reverse this trend? I am so disappointed with what elected democrats do/ or not do...
Curious what you think the Democrats should do? Take over more state governments and governorships and secretary of state positions? The Koch fueled RGA, also backed by Murdoch money, set about systematically to get these posts into GOP hands.
It's the PUBLIC that needs to be educated on their slimy moves. And then to demand changes.
When my conservative friends suggest "second amendment solutions to federal government problems," this isn't one of the problems to which they refer. Perhaps it should be.
This was a duplicate post -- not my fault. Edited to remove duplication, but haven't figured out how to delete.
It is not so much that the districts are unequal in size. They are shaped so that the majority of democrats are contained in a single odd shaped region. The democrats win these districts by a landslide. In other regions the districts are designed so that there is a small majority for republicans. With democratic leaning population centers sequestered into a single district, democrats form a minority in all of these close but republican leaning districts. So democrats win a handful of districts by a landslide, while republicans closely win the majority of districts. Result: Democrats win a few districts, republicans win the majority of them, even though more people voted fro democrats that republicans.
This is nothing new. This has been done by both parties for a while - like...since the early 1800's where it got it's name from a Governor Gerry of Massachusetts. In Illinois this past election gerrymandering helped the Democrats. The party in power of a certains state will almost always do this.
In Ohio we had an issue on the ballot to promote fair redistricting. Thanks to our Secretary of State, it was printed out in full in the most complex legalese on the ballot so that no one would take the time to read it or vote for it. They made it issue 2 so that there would be confusion with the previous issue 2 which was the union bashing referendum. There was no money for advertising and educating the public on the issue so no one knew what it was or how it would benefit them. Of course there were ads against the issue, but they did not tell you what the issue was--just that you should vote against it. We have some of the oddest-shaped districts in northeast ohio, so that the Democrats can be all lumped into the same area. Dirty, very dirty, politics.
Show us the info for Utah? I think it's the worst.
Defeating the Republicans just means you gotta beat some guy named Gerry Mander
Taxation without representation is tyranny. U. S. Justice Department needs to weigh in on this.
Futureprez 2016, #19
Right, that Gerry Mander needs to be stopped. Thanks to him, my state, PA, is now scarlet red and we have the distinct embarrassment of Pat Toomey as one of our T-Party Senators.
Thanks to Gerry Mander, we are stuck with him and a few other embarrassments. This state used to be Democratic. Now our T-Party governor, Tom Corbett, is trying to privatize everything but my cat. The money from the lotto that used to give millions to our seniors, is now being turned over to a private company who will take that money from them.
The GOP has done this everywhere, as they know they cannot win on the merits of their platforms and egregious ideas. Not everybody liked Ayn Rand or her books. In my opinion, she was an atheist, communist nut. Smart, yes, but so was the unibomber. I will never understand why Ryan and his ilk revere her so much.
Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago...
Body count: Chicago recorded its 436th homicide Oct. 27
303 YTD killed in Afghanistan AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.
President Barack H. Obama, former Illinois State Senator, and Illinois U.S. Senator (2 years)
Senator: Dick Durbin (D)
House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D)
Governor: Pat Quinn (D)
House leader: Mike Madigan (D)
Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (D) (daughter of Mike Madigan))
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel (D)
The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course, they are all blaming each other. They cannot blame Republicans; there aren't any!
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country -teachers highest paid.
State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .
becker 65, #21
Gee, what exactly are you trying to say here? What precisely is your point?
The motto of the RIGHT must be... "If we can't win and get our way... We'll cheat and destroy America!" May Karma be swift.
Democrats have no grasp of how to balance the books or to keep us safe.
What liberals don't understand is that conservatives live in the country, which is a much larger area than cities. Since land can vote, it only makes sense that conservatives should have more representation in legislatures!