Liau - assignment 16

How the Use of Gerrymandering as a Form of Voter Suppression is Leading to the Decline of Democracy in the United States: Annotated Bibliography

Friedman, John N., and Richard T. Holden. “The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: What’s Gerrymandering Got to Do With It?” Journal of Politics, vol. 71, no. 2, Apr. 2009, pp. 593–611. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/S0022381609090483.

This article explains that contrary to popular belief, gerrymandering is not the cause of the recent rises in incumbent reelection rates. While the authors have no clear reason for why, they do prove that incumbency gerrymandering is not the cause. By collecting data from elections from 1898 to 2004 and the GNP growth and classifying districts based on party affiliation, Friedman and Holden were able to discover trends in gerrymandered districts and incumbent reelection rates. The researchers find that “Though many factors contribute to the successes of incumbents, most of these effects change continuously over time. Redistricting, on the other hand, occurs only sporadically, and usually after decadal Census years. Thus, we identify the effect of redistricting as a discontinuous jump when states redraw boundaries, while using a flexible but smooth function in time to control for the many potentially confounding effects.” They also found that gerrymandering actually reduced many reelection rates of politicians. This paper provides a counter argument as many believe that incumbent gerrymandering leads to decline of constituent welfare. Additionally, many incumbents draw districts based on party lines and often suppress minority voters or voters affiliated with the other party. However, this paper focuses on purely incumbent gerrymandering and not on the partisan politics behind it. I would use this source to show that while some forms of gerrymandering don’t always benefit the politicians, they still exist and show the depth of the crisis. Additionally, it shows how politicians often try to put their interests ahead of their districts and this creation of a superiority status will lead to the decline of constituent interests’ in Congress and in turn, democratic ideals. This source is credible as Friedman is a Professor of Economics and Political Affairs at Brown University. He was also a Special Assistant to President Obama at the National Economic Council. He is obviously informed and trusted by many prestigious institutions. Richard Holden is also a Professor of Economics, and has taught at South Wales, the University of Chicago, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While both authors' focuses are economics, that field plays hand in hand with politics and government, as money runs the world. Additionally, Friedman is also well known for his work in political affairs.

Okonta, Patricia. “Race-Based Political Exclusion and Social Subjugation: Racial Gerrymandering as a Badge of Slavery.” HeinOnline, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2018, heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/colhr49&div=20&id=&page=. 

This paper outlines specifically Black Americans’ history with racial discrimination in the voting progress and how many states continue to use gerrymandering to “legally” suppress minority votes. Okonta covers Reconstruction era amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th), the use of gerrymandering to either dilute or exclude Black voices in politics, and how the institution of slavery is the root of present-day Black voter suppression. It is no question that Black Americans have had to fight to earn their right to vote in America. That right is still undermined today through different forms of racial gerrymandering, which all cause a form of social and political subjugation. Okonta explains how even if gerrymandering is performed to ensure Black representatives, it is often overdone and dilutes Black voter influence elsewhere. She states, “There is a delicate balance between race-conscious redistricting that enables black voters to elect their preferred candidate and those schemes that are designed to dilute black political power throughout the state.” Racial gerrymandering creates a political plan with schemes so linked to slavery that it is impossible to say social subjugation is not achieved. This systemic process dismantles the influence of Black voices in politics and achieves race-based exclusion. The paper focuses on the racial form of gerrymandering. It will be helpful to my argument because it provides a Black American’s point of view. As a white person, you cannot write well-enough about racial gerrymandering because your community has not experienced it. While white opinions on racial gerrymandering are important, they are not the most pertinent because they are not the ones being targeted. Okonta has mountains of research on the detrimental effects of racial gerrymandering in Black communities and in turn, the running of the American democracy. Okonta is a law clerk for the U.S. Courts of Appeals and is an associate attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Her credentials are extremely impressive and prove she is well-informed and qualified.

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. “Walking the Line: Modern Gerrymandering and Partisanship.” Georgia Law Review, vol. 52, no. 4, Summer 2018, pp. 1009–1038. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=a9h&AN=133873874.

During his speech, Stephanopoulos claims that election systems, like redistricting and more specifically gerrymandering, are outdated in such a hyper partisan time. He outlines how political history can be split into three phases, each characterized by levels of partisanship exhibited by politicians and citizens. He then connects this second era with the creation of election laws that made sense at the time as partisanship was extremely low. He also points out how the constitutional outlawing of vote dilution only covers racial issues, not partisan issues, as it was created during a nonpartisan era. This leaves partisan gerrymandering as more of a legal option if executed properly. In more current times, racial gerrymandering was often written off as it had “partisan motivation”. This not only suppressed voters, but led to the hyper partisan and polarized government we know today. Lastly, partisan gerrymandering was often dismissed in courts because there had to be evidence of  “consistent degradation”. This was near impossible as one had to show disadvantage over multiple elections. Additionally, Stephanopoulos mentions, “The Vieth Court tells us that ‘political affiliation is not an immutable characteristic, but may shift from one election to the next.’ But we saw earlier that, in fact, today’s voters almost never change their partisan preferences from one election to the next”. This means that partisan gerrymandering is almost impossible to prove and rarely stands in court. Stephanopoulos is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and gave the mentioned speech as the keynote address at a Georgia Law Review Conference. He is well-versed in constitutional and election law, and therefore is a reliable source. I would use this speech in my argument to show the progression of hyper partisan politics and election laws over the years, and how it is currently detrimental to the United States democracy. While Stephanopoulos does not focus on the voter suppression that is caused by gerrymandering, he mentions dozens of court cases dealing with it and their meaning in dealing with drawing districts. This will further my and my audience’s understanding of the laws and court cases surrounding racial and partisan gerrymandering and other various election laws. This knowledge can later be applied when understanding the voter suppression that occurs from gerrymandering.

Tausanovitch, Alex, and Danielle Root. “How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights.” Center for American Progress, Center for American Progress, 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2020/07/08/487426/partisan-gerrymandering-limits-voting-rights/. 

This article outlines how gerrymandering can affect the voting rights of American citizens and how it often creates a situation where the principles of democracy are not upheld. The article focuses on four main states (North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) wherein the 2018 election failed to represent the interests of their constituents as a result of gerrymandering. The popular vote of the majority party did not earn the majority of Congress seats because of highly partisan gerrymandered district lines. Elected officials in these states also then abused their power gained from gerrymandering to create stricter voting laws. The authors mention how, “If majorities of voters cannot elect majorities of legislators, that is a failure of democracy. If those ill-gotten majorities then use their power to disenfranchise voters, that is a democratic downward spiral.” The Center for American Progress suggests that all states adopt independent commissions to draw federal districts. Taking away the power to draw districts from incumbents is the only way to effectively reform the system and uphold democratic principles in the United States. The Center for American Progress is an organization focused on progressive public policy advocacy and research. It is seen as reliable and factual in its reporting and sourcing. Their favoring for progressive stances on issues usually aligns with liberalness and thus creates a Democratic bias. However, they still use moderate language and are seen as a proper source of information. I will use this source to show how deeply gerrymandering can indirectly influence citizens’ fundamental right to vote. 

Waters, Carlos. “The Algorithm That Could Help End Partisan Gerrymandering.” YouTube, Vox, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRCZR_BbjTo. 

This video outlines a new method that will likely be used to end partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts. Using a supercomputer and math, Wendy Cho and Yan Liu have devised a measurement tool that aids the courts in deciding whether a map has been politically manipulated. This will allow for the Supreme Court to have a “ruler” for gerrymandering. The supercomputer generates possible maps based on criteria such as population equity, contiguity, compactness, and traditional districting principles. These maps are made without using any political information, and therefore non-partisan. If the current map doesn’t match one of the millions the computer-generated, chances are it has been politically manipulated, and the court has evidence of partisan gerrymandering. This program was only used to point out partisan gerrymandering but could be used with racial gerrymandering if different criteria were input. This video is helpful in explaining why the Supreme Court is reluctant to take gerrymandering cases and provides a potential solution. This solution still enables politicians to draw districts, but aids in creating a “ruler” for gerrymandering measurement for motivation. Vox is widely regarded as a reliable news source with its focus on “explanatory journalism”. They also tend to be left-skewed, but the mentioned video does not deal with certain partisan politics. Instead, it explains a governmental voter suppression tactic used by both parties. Carlos Waters is a multimedia producer from Vox, and much of the video is narrated by the creators of the supercomputer program themselves. This provides an added layer of reliability, as who better to explain a topic than it’s creators. I would use this source to provide a solution to the gerrymandering problem in the United States. This is not a proactive solution but a reactive one. Ending all gerrymandering would ensure more democratic election processes, but this computer program will immensely help the Supreme Court hold a standard for gerrymandering cases.