NCSL National Redistricting Seminar
Providence, Rhode Island
September 26, 2010
“More than a Line in the Sand”
Welcome Remarks by Senator Richard T. Moore
President, National Conference of State Legislatures
If, indeed, there are such phenomena as ghosts, the ghost of Elbridge Gerry must surely hang over these
proceedings! Redistricting is one of the oldest continuous acts of democratic governance in the United
States. For the last two hundred years, Elbridge Gerry’s ghost has hovered over legislative redistricting in
America and in representative democracies around the world.
Why would Gerry’s ghost be with us, here in Providence, today? Well, we’re meeting next door to the
state where Gerry served as a Congressman and two-term Governor. His connections also extend to the
greater Northeast region since his grandson – also named Elbridge – was a Congressman from Maine and
his great grandson, Peter, was a Congressman and U. S. Senator from Rhode Island. There are even two
small towns in New York State named in his honor.
Of course, Gerry is most often remembered for the redistricting plan that he pushed through the
Massachusetts Legislature that, critics claimed, took on a shape resembling a salamander – termed,
“Gerrymandering.” The Governor's strategy was to encompass most of the state's Federalists in one
district, allowing them to win in that district while his party, the Democratic-Republicans, took control of
all the other districts in the state. Of course, while highly controversial, the practice of the party in power
drawing legislative and congressional districts to favor their party and to protect majority party
incumbents continues to this day.
There is both good news and bad news to this story regarding the fate of Governor Gerry. He was
defeated for re-election to a third term as Governor of Massachusetts largely, we’re told, because of the
controversy that ensued following passage of the redistricting plan – that’s the bad news from Gerry’s
perspective – in case there’s any confusion.
The good news is that he was subsequently chosen to serve as Vice President of the United States in the
Madison Administration! Gerry was the first U.S. Vice President who did not, later, seek the Presidency.
That was, however, not through political calculation of his chances as one might expect from someone
who so carefully calculated the electoral prospects of his party. The reason that he didn’t use the Vice
Presidency as a springboard as simply that he died while serving as Vice President.
Well, that’s enough history for today. As we all know – and the reason we’re here – every ten years,
based on new population estimates from the decennial census, every state must redraw its electoral
boundaries. We also know that these lines have a crucial impact on electoral outcomes. Control of the
redistricting process often translates into gains on Election Day for the majority party.
The methods by which states draw these lines are as varied as the states themselves. In most states, as
state legislators, we are responsible for drawing the own district lines, and the plans that are often
produced favor incumbents’ partisan or bipartisan self-interest.
“Gerrymandering” can be viewed as both positive and negative. If the districts are drawn in ways that
don’t favor your party, your party will accuse the other of “Gerrymandering.” In that case, it has a
negative connotation with the public. However, if it’s used to draw districts to give minorities a chance at
winning a legislative or Congressional seat, the media and public may consider it to be a positive
outcome.
Redistricting is, for the most part, about the future. The districts that are drawn – either by state
legislators or the courts – will heavily influence the election results and, to some degree, public policy in
state legislative and congressional districts for the next decade.
Your work in redistricting is going to be closely watched by powerful interests well beyond the walls of
your state capitol. “Organizing for America” is a group affiliated with President Obama and the National
Democratic Party that is already involved in a number of this year’s state legislative races in states where
the Democrats control or could take a majority in some key states. National Republicans are doing the
same thing to produce Republican state legislatie majorities that could draw district maps more favorable
to Republican candidates.
At least, two new web applications are letting everyday citizens try their hand at the process.
Longtime Swing State Project readers, a Democratic political web site, are already familiar with Dave’s
Redistricting App. Basically, it’s a program that uses existing precinct and demographic data from 43
states to let anyone redistrict any state in any way, precinct-by-precinct, and it gives you a real-time
demographic breakdown as you build your districts. As a bonus, you get to decide how many districts to
draw, so the same program can be used to game out state legislative districts, too.
Dave’s app is extremely addictive, and dozens of redistricting proposals have been popping up at Swing
State for months. The program is probably more powerful than anything state legislators had at their
disposal as late as the 1991 redistricting cycle, and it puts in sharp relief the enormous impact redistricting
has on future elections. It’s so popular that Swing State Project is actually holding a redistricting contest,
which we’d encourage anyone to enter.
The second application is much newer, and it comes from Redistricting the Nation. It allows you to check
the compactness of every congressional and state legislative district in the country, along with municipal
districts in select major cities, according to four objective criteria. After checking different states and their
districts, the application lets you draw your own district and check its compactness scores.
Undoubtedly, there are other programs that may be useful. However, my primary point is that programs
like these are helping to open up redistricting to a wider audience than ever before, and considering
what’s at stake, we think that’s generally a good thing for the health of our democracy. It’s not only the
opposition party that will look to challenge your work, but a variety of interest groups across the political
spectrum.
Why do we redistrict? In 1962,the Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Carr that the redistricting process is
subject to judicial review. Baker challenged state legislative districts in Tennessee, which had not been
redrawn in sixty years. Due to population shifts, some districts had eight times more residents than others.
In Baker, the Court rejected the argument that redistricting is a non-justiciable “political question,” and
ruled that “malapportioned” districts are subject to judicial invalidation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In subsequent cases, such as Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) and Reynolds v. Sims (1965), the Court
established the requirement that legislative districts (including congressional, state, local districts) must be
drawn on an equal population basis, and may be redrawn by the courts to protect the principle of “one
person, one vote.”
In 1965, the Voting Rights Act outlawed racial gerrymandering, the process by which districts are drawn
to dilute voting strength of racial minorities, and courts have overturned many districts on the grounds
that they violate the Voting Rights Act. In Shaw v. Reno (1993) and a series of related cases, the Supreme
Court held that districts can be challenged under the federal Equal Protection Clause on the basis that they
excessively separate voters into districts based on race. Sometimes it can be difficult to strike a balance
between the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the restrictions of Shaw v. Reno. More recently,
in Bartlett v. Strickland (2009) the Supreme Court said that the Legislature was not required by Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act to draw a Senate district that would have a 39% African-American population
In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymanders are justiciable, but
despite repeated lawsuits, the Court has yet to overturn a plan on the grounds that it disadvantages
members of a political party.
NCSL has been holding National Redistricting Seminars like this one for the past year and a half – San
Francisco, June 2009; Chicago October, 2009; Austin TX March, 2010; as well as staff section meetings,
presentation at the Fall and Spring Forums and the Louisville Summit and at least one webinar in May
2009. All of the papers from these meetings are on the NCSL Web Site – www.ncsl.org. There will be at
least one more National Seminar next January 21 – 23 in Washington, DC. I’d encourage you and your
staff to take full advantage of these meetings, the materials, and our NCSL Redistricting expertise led by
Tim Storey.
It’s a safe bet that, whatever you may do – even if it’s a perfectly balanced and fair plan – there’s a good
chance that your work will end up in court. What’s most important is that you do your work in such a
way, that there’s also a good chance that your plan will win! That’s the reason why NCSL wants you and
your staff to learn as much as possible about the redistricting process and the potential pitfalls that any
redistricting effort faces.
It’s important to remember that when we start drawing those lines, our political “lines in the sand,” might
actually be carved in stone for the next decade. Welcome to the NCSL Redistricting Seminar and get
ready to start drawing those lines!
Additional Resources:
www.ncsl.org
www.swingstateproject.com
www.redistrictingfacts.com
www.davesredistricting.blogspot.com
www.redistrictingthenation.com