Junior economics and finance major
Looking at a map of this state, it’s clear that this is one of the weirdest-shaped states in the nation. But a glance at a map of this state’s congressional districts is another thing entirely. The incomprehensible maze of borders is an embarrassing symptom of a nationwide problem.
Named after a 19th-century Massachusetts governor, gerrymandering has been an American tradition for two centuries. However, the upcoming midterm elections are a reminder that politically motivated lines of jurisdiction are an obstacle to democracy.
The idea of republican democracy is that a group of voters choose a representative. However, when districts are drawn by those already in power, politicians can choose their own constituencies. While millions will head to the polls in this and other gerrymandered states, their votes are mostly meaningless.
The goal of gerrymandering is to solidify one party’s control for the 10 years between censuses. In this state, Democrats strategically drew lines after 2010 in order to maximize their House of Representatives seats decided by uncompetitive elections.
Conservative areas in the western part of this state were split into Districts 6 and 8. Convoluted lines were drawn to dilute these areas with voters from the densely populated Democratic stronghold of Montgomery County. Meanwhile, the Eastern Shore and the northeastern part of this state were packed into a single district to guarantee that the Republicans will hold only a single seat.
Even if you support the Democrats, gerrymandering is bad in the big picture. In many states, Republicans exert the same control. In others, incumbents work across party lines to maintain the status quo.
As information technology has improved in recent decades, politicians have been able to use data to pinpoint voting preferences down to individual houses. This maximizes the effectiveness of the district lines in creating uncompetitive elections.
One negative consequence of gerrymandering is that it divides states in ways that do not make geographic sense. In District 6, U.S. Rep. John Delaney represents a territory that stretches from Oakland and Deep Creek Lake to Potomac and Gaithersburg. The economic and cultural differences among these locales mean that the representative will have to neglect some areas when he votes in Washington.
Additionally, uncompetitive elections for House seats end up reducing voters’ engagement with politics. When there is no serious threat to a candidate in an election, voters will not bother learning about the issues of importance. If every NFL game were a blowout that was fixed ahead of time, there wouldn’t be many fans.
Another problem with gerrymandering is that when districts are uncompetitive, representatives have no threat of being voted out and can tend toward less moderate stances. This polarization contributes to the gridlock of the modern Congress, which leads to nothing getting done. Representatives are less accountable when their chances of being booted are slim to none.
In California, a measure pushed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the Voters FIRST Act, passed in 2008. This law takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians and instead creates an independent commission to handle it in a politically neutral way. Several other states have passed similar laws. However, there exists no nationwide legislation to eradicate gerrymandering.
The problem is that the only people who can change the system are those who benefit from it the most: the incumbent members of Congress. A constitutional amendment to reform redistricting would require a two-thirds majority of Congress to vote to make its own re-election less convenient. That would never happen.
When you head to the polls to elect this state’s House representatives on Nov. 4, just remember that you are a dot on a map drawn by politicians who have planned your choice in advance. But you will never hear them admit it.
Daniel Galitsky is a junior economics and finance major. He can be reached at dgalitskydbk@gmail.com.
