Gerrymandering Is Bad for Business
Overall, we believe that dysfunction in America’s political system is now the
single most important challenge to U.S. economic progress. . . .
Of six common proposals for political system reform, a strong majority of HBS
[Harvard Business School] alumni support five. The most supported reforms are
gerrymandering reform and campaign finance reform.
– Harvard Business School Survey on U.S. Competitiveness, September 2016
GOOD GOVERNMENT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Gerrymandering – the partisan manipulation of electoral districts for political gain –
ranks number one in a September 2016 survey of Harvard Business School grads
asked what political reforms they most favored. It’s not hard to see why.
In a gerrymandered district, elected officials are no longer faced with fair
competition from both sides of the political aisle. Their seats are “safe.” The only
real competition they might get is from a more extreme wing of their party. So,
positions harden, and compromise with the opposition party is dangerous to their
re-election prospects. And that can lead to legislative gridlock.
We’ve seen that happen in Harrisburg. A healthy economy requires careful planning
across many fronts with a clear focus on long-term strategy. Businesses need to
know what to expect in terms of tax policy, economic development, education and
training initiatives. What about business accelerators and innovation districts? Will
there be funding for infrastructure improvements to lower costs and improve the
quality of life for residents, which can attract new businesses and new customers?
Or will political polarization make it harder to build consensus on sensible economic
policies?
But gerrymandering doesn’t just lead to extreme political outcomes. Gerrymandered
districts can deprive local businesses of an effective voice in Harrisburg. Look at a
map of Pennsylvania. There is not one district whose boundaries conform to all of
the redistricting criteria spelled out in the Pennsylvania Constitution:
“representative districts . . . shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as
nearly equal in population as practicable. . . . Unless absolutely necessary no county, city,
incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a
senatorial or representative district.”
2
All districts fulfill the contiguity requirement – but many by the tiniest sliver of land.
Very few meet the compactness rule and all fail the mandate not to split political
subdivisions. Even aside from the constitutional criteria, a cursory examination of
the map would lead anyone to wonder what reasonable rationale could have been
used to draw these lines – other than a motive to unfairly rig election results.
Consider the case of Pennsylvania counties. The U.S. Constitution and federal law
maintain that congressional districts be equal in population “as nearly as
practicable,” which number currently is about 710,000. One could reasonably
assume the many counties with less population would fall within a single
congressional district. Yet many are unnecessarily split into multiple districts.
Small- to medium-size businesses especially suffer from this rampant and
indiscriminate splitting. Divvying up local communities dilutes their voice in
Congress and the General Assembly. Rather than having a single representative
making a strong case for their district, split municipalities with multiple legislators –
often representing larger constituencies elsewhere – may not be at the top of their
legislators’ agenda.
A troubling example of “cracking” – what the technique of splitting communities so
their voices aren’t heard is called – happened in the 1990s in the Koreatown
neighborhood of Los Angeles. Riots following the police beating of motorist Rodney
King took a heavy toll on businesses there. But when local business leaders looked
to their elected representatives for help, they were disappointed. Koreatown had
been cracked – carved up and dispersed into several larger political districts on the
state and local level, and each representative claimed that the community’s interests
were represented by someone else.
WE CAN FIX THIS NOW
Election analysts agree that the best solution to gerrymandered districts is an
independent redistricting commission with strict guidelines for public input and
transparency and clear standards for the final outcome. Which is no doubt why
democratic governments around the world use non-legislative commissions to
determine legislative districts. The United States has yet to join that community of
nations.
The American business community has every reason to support redistricting
reform. In 2008 the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce was a key contributor to the
successful push for an independent redistricting commission in California. And in
2014 a multi-state poll of small businesses found that 83 percent of owners favor a
nonpartisan approach to drawing electoral districts.
The Pennsylvania Constitution puts redistricting solely in the hands of the
Legislature. Politicians draw the lines of their own voting districts – an obvious
conflict of interest. Working behind the scenes, party leaders have a free hand to
draw the lines any way they want, using any criteria they want – including advanced
3
mapping and data-mining software that can pinpoint voting patterns down to street
level.
Changing redistricting rules in the Commonwealth requires a constitutional
amendment, initiated and approved by two successive legislative sessions, then
approved by voters in a public referendum. First passage of reform legislation in the
2017-18 session would still allow time to have an independent redistricting
commission in place for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
The good news is that there is real hope for change. Senate Bill 22, a bipartisan
proposal to put an independent citizens commission in charge of both legislative
and congressional redistricting, was jointly introduced February 27, 2017, by Sens.
Lisa Boscola, a Democrat, and Mario Scavello, a Republican. The bill calls for an
impartial commission, randomly chosen from pools of voters meeting strict criteria
of independence. The work of the commission would be transparent, provide for
meaningful public input, and implemented without legislative or gubernatorial
approval.
A comparable bill (HB 722) will be introduced in the state House. Both are modeled
after a similar plan in California.
THE TAKEAWAY
• Gerrymandering subverts our democratic system of representation
• Incumbents of “safe” districts aren’t truly accountable to their
constituents and don’t need to demonstrate a record of legislative
accomplishments
• Businesses suffer when government can’t secure a stable economic
environment or pass sensible legislation to grow the economy
• “Cracked” districts and divided communities – and the businesses that
serve them – lose influence in Harrisburg
• The solution is an independent redistricting commission with clear
standards and strict rules for public input and transparency
• SB 22 and HB 722, bipartisan reform legislation supported by Fair
Districts PA, aim to fix Pennsylvania’s broken electoral system
Fair Districts PA is a nonpartisan, statewide coalition of individuals and organizations who
believe the redistricting process should be transparent, impartial and fair. With leadership
from Common Cause PA, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania
Council of Churches, Committee of Seventy, Pennsylvanians for Fair Elections and the Black
Political Empowerment Project, dozens of organizations and municipalities across the state
have endorsed or passed resolutions in support of our advocacy efforts.
________________________
Fair Districts PA, 226 Forster Street, Harrisburg PA 17102 ◊ (717) 234-1576
For more information, email [email protected] or visit our website at www.FairDistrictsPA.com
Follow us on Facebook (www.facebook.com/FairDistrictsPA) and Twitter (@FairDistrictsPA)