Third Way: Are Voting Districts Fair?
Giant Asparagus
Every ten years a census is conducted across the United States for a multitude of reasons. Among them is the intent to determine how best to approach redistricting for upcoming elections by employing the use of data collected regarding population changes across the decade prior. This process is intended to ensure that each individual’s vote is of equal weight with that of their peers; this is often portrayed by the phrase “one person, one vote”. However, the politics of dividing these districts can sometimes become contentious when partisan practices are introduced. But how common is this phenomenon?
In order to answer this question, it is important to first provide a background regarding what, exactly, voting districts are.
A voting district, as defined by Fair Districts PA, is “a specific geographic area defined for the purpose of electing representatives to government bodies”. These districts are determined and consequently changed in accordance with population counts, the most recent U.S. Census results, and compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits dilution of minority votes through racial discrimination.
As with nearly all government processes, there is room for and a history of manipulation within redistricting. The practical manifestation of this manipulation is called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is defined as “the manipulation of voting district boundaries based on partisanship or race to achieve an unfair advantage”, as reported by the Campaign Legal Center.
The process of gerrymandering can be utilized as a method of political strategy wherein voters of like-minded ideals are grouped in the same district in order to elevate a shared political opinion and increase the possibility of a candidate’s success.
While this may not be entirely fair to the other side of the aisle, it is important to acknowledge that it has been and still is, considered a valid political strategy. This form of gerrymandering is morally ambiguous in its nature and can be incredibly harmful to the democratic process. However, where the most grievous of issues arise is in the application of racial gerrymandering when redistricting occurs. For example, the discussion of district placement of Indigenous populations in North Dakota.
In states with substantial Indigenous populations, the concern for racial gerrymandering has arisen many times as districts are redrawn and census’ are counted as is true in the case of “Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe, Wesley Davis, Zachery S. King, and Collette Brown V. Alvin Jaeger”. Note that after Alvin Jaeger left office and was replaced by Michael Howe as Secretary of State, the case was renamed “Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Michael Howe”. This case, brought against Howe (previously against Jaeger) in 2022 was raised in opposition to redistricting which placed Native American voters in such an area that the plaintiffs felt as though their voices were at risk of dilution and thus not of equal weight with their peers. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled that the plaintiffs claims were valid and that the redistricting of districts 9 and 15 violated the Voting Rights Act.
While gerrymandering itself may be lawful, racial gerrymandering is neither lawful nor morally defensible. To rely on the manipulation and intentional silencing of a population with the sole intent to win an election is a gross abuse of power. The way to win over voters is not to deny their rights in a sneaky, backdoor way. Rather, this is an excellent recipe for losing trust and respect from one's constituents.
Elected officials and those seeking office owe it to the individuals they represent to uphold a nature of responsibility, integrity, and an open mindedness that allows for the consideration of all people who reside under them; not simply those who support them.
Though it may be well known, today's political environment leads one to believe that many have forgotten that the Pledge of Allegiance is more than just an opening song for sports matches or a score of music played at parades. It is the promise we make to each other every time we speak it. A promise to uphold the values of the United States of America. Values which are not confounded in malice or vilany or any other notion that betrays the good nature of human beings. The concluding words of this patriotic melody, “with liberty and justice for all” does not contain caveats or redactions or exceptions. It is not with liberty and justice for MOST, but rather, for ALL.
To be American is to live in a democratic society where your vote is counted and matters just as much as every other voter. Racial gerrymandering removes this right and undermines the integrity of the democratic process as a whole. In this way, racial gerrymandering is entirely un-American and has no place in a civil, respectful society nor in any part of the election process.