Gerrymandering means “to arrange political divisions to give one political party an unfair advantage in elections, to manipulate unfairly.” Therefore, by definition, gerrymandering is antithetical to the basic principles under which our country was founded.
Simply put, gerrymandering is a perfect example of an attempt to “beat the system” or to “win at all costs,” by those who lack honor and integrity. No surprise here that the proposal put forth in Texas came from President Donald Trump. Likewise, it’s no surprise that the first and most vocal counterproposal came from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
However, I’m skeptical about the response from Gavin Newsom and other Democrats in which they want to implement more gerrymandering in their states. To me it smacks of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” mentality. That approach usually escalates to the point where no one is a winner. At the very least, those advocating this approach should add the caveat that this effort is only being done to counter the actions of the Trump/Greg Abbott politicians who are seeking nothing but unbridled power.
They should include a pledge that the eventual intent and goal is to introduce legislation that permanently bans gerrymandering and will require that all future redistricting must be conducted by independent, non-partisan commissions based on factors such as county lines, ZIP codes, voting precincts, census blocks, etc., and will be as geographically compact and non-partisan as possible. Factors such as race, ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, country of origin or any similar criteria will not be considered. Ideally, each district should be as competitive as possible. Fair competition breeds excellence.
And, ideally a proposal of this type would include the endorsement of members of both parties who are willing to exhibit some semblance of honor, integrity, ethics, justice and fairness; and who genuinely care about the future of this country.
In a recent commentary, Michael Reagan provides some historical perspective, appearing to use that as justification for what is happening in Texas. Yes, it was started by a Boston politician in 1812. And, yes, it has been used by all parties from time to time ever since. In fact, it is legal to some extent in nearly every state. However, being legal does not make it right, ethical, appropriate or acceptable.
Reagan also points out that “there are 11 blue states with zero Republicans in the U.S. House today.” He mentions eight among them: “Delaware, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Connecticut.” However, he fails to mention that two of them (Delaware and Vermont) only have one congressional district each, so cannot possibly be gerrymandered. He also fails to point out that there are five other states (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming) with just one district each. Note that they are all solid red states.
On a related note, let me point out that this issue draws attention to a basic flaw in the Electoral College process. Given the political leanings of these seven small states, Republicans have an advantage of 15 electoral votes to four electoral votes over Democrats. The advantage continues even among larger states.
Let me be clear: I am a proponent of the Electoral College, but believe some adjustments need to be made to make it a more fair and equitable system. However, that is a subject for a different commentary. But the very first step toward improving the Electoral College is to completely ban gerrymandering from the political process.
Philosophically, it is impossible for anyone who claims to be a true American patriot to embrace, or even attempt to defend, the practice of gerrymandering. It does not matter who first committed the act, and it does not matter who has most benefitted from it. Gerrymandering must be eliminated if our country is to survive.
Jack Crawford
Saugus
