Little known fact: Although voters cast 1.7 million more votes for Democratic candidates than for Republicans in US House of Representatives races in 2012, according to the Federal Election Commission, Republicans gained a 234-201 majority in the House.
In order to leave election votes “taken by states” as provided in the Constitution, federal courts have allowed state legislatures to engage in “gerrymandering” since 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry oversaw the creation of a sprawling congressional district that snaked borders around pockets of supporters. The new boundary vaguely resembled a salamander, so reporters seized on the governor’s bizarre progeny and coined the term “Gerry-mander.”
Gerrymandering is a plague on both our parties. Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District, recently declared unconstitutional, is a case in point. Initially, Democrats championed the process, gerrymandering districts to maintain minority populations that vote blue. Due to this strategy, Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995.
Republicans learned the lesson – and got better at gerrymandering than Democrats. The GOP realized it could overcrowd districts created by Democrats with disproportionate amounts of minority populations. By increasing numbers in a safe Democratic district, Republicans reduced the influence of the liberal voting bloc in both state politics and congressional elections. Republicans controlled the US House from 1995 until losing election cycles in 2006 and 2008; however, the party retained its power in state legislatures, and doubled down on redrawing favorable maps after the 2010 Census.
A 2013 study by the Republican State Leadership Committee, which claims to be the “largest caucus of Republican state leaders in the country,” boasts that the disparity between the 1.7 million votes cast for Democratic candidates and the resulting Republican majority in 2012 was an “aberration” purposely created. The committee admits it focused on new district boundaries in states with “the most redistricting activity,” thereby instilling a “Republican stronghold in the US House of Representatives for the next decade.”
This month, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the 2011 redistricting effort in Virginia was unconstitutional, specifically the 3rd District, comprising five geographically separate locations between Portsmouth and Richmond that have only the James River and a high concentration of African American populations in common.
Judge Allyson Duncan noted in the ruling that the legislature’s redistricting process is “not a license for the State to do whatever it deems necessary to ensure continued electoral success.” Legislators now must redraw district boundaries by April 2015.
“I hope and expect the General Assembly will more equitably and appropriately balance the influence of all Virginia’s voters, as mandated by this decision, when they redraw the 3rd Congressional District and adjacent congressional districts next session,” said US Rep. Bobby Scott, the Democrat who represents the 3rd District.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, also a Democrat, concluded that the ruling “demonstrates the need to get partisan politics out of how Virginia draws its legislative boundaries.”
The General Assembly had multiple nonpartisan solutions to choose from. There was a map drawn by the Bipartisan Advisory Commission on Redistricting, appointed by former Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, as well as multiple submissions in a statewide collegiate competition featuring such schools as the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia. Rather than allowing the divided legislature to toy with where people vote for partisan gain, we must devise an independent redistricting system before risking further voter disenfranchisement.
After reviewing Virginia’s redistricting efforts, nonpartisan commissions “improve upon the current districts in dramatic ways without sacrificing equal population standards or voting rights considerations,” a 2011 study by Christopher Newport University concluded. However, the General Assembly instead passed a map drawn by the conservative legislature, even though, according to the report, it would “make legislative districts less compact, split more counties and cities, and separate commonsense communities.”
McAuliffe started to tackle the problem before the courts did in late September. He appointed a 10-member bipartisan board to review Virginia’s ethics rules and redistricting policies, reminding the commission that fair voting practices “are the essential covenant of democracy.”
Gerrymandering is the byproduct of a failed democracy. Every voter should be guaranteed a voice that matters and is heard. Citizens need to strip partisan state legislatures of their control over redistricting before the legislature strips the citizens of their power to vote.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.