Posts Tagged gerrymandering
Led by disgruntled Republican state lawmakers still reeling from President Obama’s reelection in November, several key swing states are considering legislation to modify their electoral systems in a way that would help ensure Republican victories.
From Wisconsin to Virginia to Florida, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that President Obama carried in 2012 are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. Instead, Republican lawmakers want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that many see as a crude attempt at election-rigging.
What the changes would mean, in effect, is that the system for electing a president would be broken down along a two-tiered proportional system. Not only would the national popular vote remain irrelevant in the selection of a president, but so too would statewide popular vote results. It would further diminish the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” by granting predetermined electoral votes to congressional districts whose voting preferences are already known — thus making elections a rather predictable exercise based more on the redistricting process than on an actual voting.
For example, in Virginia, which favored Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 51.2% to 47.3% in 2012, a bill being pushed by Republicans would award the state’s electoral votes by congressional districts that were redrawn under Republican control in 2010 and are so gerrymandered that Obama would have won just four votes to Romney’s nine.
FairVote executive director Rob Richie described the Virginia plan as “an incredibly unfair and indefensible proposal” and said he testified against a similar proposal in Pennsylvania, whose lawmakers briefly considered splitting its electoral votes for the 2012 election before backing down amid a public outcry against the maneuver.
The bill’s sponsor, however, Republican Sen. Charles Carrico, claimed he offered the measure on behalf of his Southwest Virginia constituents, who, he said, feel their votes are devalued because they’re outnumbered by voters in densely populated metropolitan areas. “They are very adamant about the fact they feel like they have no voice in presidential elections,” Carrico said.
What he left unsaid, of course, is the flip side of this argument: that by prescribing greater electoral weight to the votes of underpopulated rural regions, the votes of densely populated metropolitan areas are devalued. This devaluation would have a disproportionate impact on minority voters who tend to cluster in highly populated urban areas. As the American Prospect pointed out, “This makes land the key variable in elections—to win the majority of a state’s electoral votes, your voters will have to occupy the most geographic space.”
Richie noted that the effect of the change, in Virginia and in other states considering similar legislation, would be to massively water down Democratic votes concentrated into a few urban districts — many of them cast by African Americans — while boosting the impact of whiter and more rural districts.
Further, by dividing Virginia’s electoral votes into individual districts, the state would simply recreate the same problems that non-competitive states face on a national level. “Because the statewide vote would be absolutely meaningless, the only political activity would be in the small number of districts where political activity might change the outcome,” Richie pointed out.
Nevertheless, the idea is being embraced by national Republicans, who are desperately attempting to remain competitive considering the country’s changing demographics and the eroding significance of the party’s “angry white guy” political base.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea earlier this month, and other Republican leaders are also lining up in support of it. “It’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at,” Priebus told the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.
Democrats are growing increasingly vocal in their opposition to the potential change, pointing out that Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney’s 60.9 million and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. Despite this clear margin of support, however, it is doubtful that he would have been re-elected under the new system, if adopted by all the states considering the change.
According to one analysis, had all 50 states used the Republican plan, Mitt Romney would have defeated President Obama by 11 electoral votes — despite losing the popular vote by five million.
Virginia State Sen. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) called the proposal one of Republicans’ many “sore-loser bills” related to elections and voting. “The bill is absolutely a partisan bill aimed at defying the will of the voters, giving Republican presidential candidates most of Virginia’s electoral votes, regardless of who carries the state,” he said.
John Marshall, publisher of the liberal blog TalkingPointsMemo.com, fretted that if enacted, the plan will “make it almost impossible for Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 and 2020, even if they match or exceed Barack Obama’s vote margin in 2012.”
Election law expert Richard Hasen, however, is reassuring Democrats that there is nothing to fear regarding these proposals, as they are unlikely to succeed. In an article titled “Democrats, Don’t Freak Out,” Hasen predicted that “the same self-interest that is leading Republicans to consider this move is also going to lead most of them to abandon it almost everywhere.”
Pointing out that a number of Democratic state legislatures, including California, have adopted the National Popular Vote plan, which would pledge all the participating states’ electors to the presidential candidate getting the most votes nationwide once enough other states adopt it, Hasen noted that the issue of “Electoral College reform” may be a can of worms that the Republicans don’t really want to open.
“Republicans have a lot to lose by going down this road,” wrote Hasen, concluding that “the Great Democratic Freak-out is unjustified.”
Only time will tell whether Hasen’s prediction is correct, but nevertheless, he may be missing the larger point regarding this debate, as well as the larger issue of the U.S. electoral system and the fundamental way that it is administered.
It’s worth pointing out that the only reason that Republicans are considering this change in the first place is because, following the 2010 census and redistricting process, they have already gerrymandered congressional districts in such a way to guarantee Republican victories. In southern states, this largely meant re-segregating politics by isolating Democrats to urban districts represented by African-American legislators while leaving Republicans to divvy up the rest of the state.
This rigged system of redistricting is how Republicans were able to keep control of the House of Representatives despite losing the popular vote nationwide by 1.4 million votes in 2012. Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent, meaning that the American people preferred a unified Democratic Congress over the divided Congress it actually got by more than a full percentage point. But thanks to partisan gerrymandering, Republicans retained a solid House majority for the 113th Congress.
An analysis by the Center for American Progress’s Ian Milhiser revealed just how firmly gerrymandering solidified Republican control of the House. “In order to take control of the House, Democrats would have needed to win the 2012 election by 7.25 percentage points,” Milhiser wrote. “That’s significantly more than the Republican margin of victory in the 2010 GOP wave election (6.6 percent), and only slightly less than the margin of victory in the 2006 Democratic wave election (7.9 percent).”
Essentially, the powers that be have set the threshold for electoral success so high that it’s become nearly insurmountable, and at best can be seen as an unfair barrier to competitive elections.
In short, this system has been gamed by partisan interests to virtually ensure certain electoral outcomes, a method of election-rigging that would be roundly condemned by the United States if practiced by countries such as Venezuela or Belarus. In an electoral system already dominated by two entrenched political parties that systematically prevent competition from smaller, independent parties such as the Greens and the Libertarians, political operatives are further undermining the democratic process by crippling the chances of their only real competitors.
These practices have drawn the attention of international election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has been monitoring elections in the United States since 2002.
The OSCE’s final report on the 2010 midterm elections noted that due to gerrymandering, “There is a broad perception that a significant number of congressional districts are non-competitive as the outcome of the election could be predicted with a high degree of probability. In these mid-term elections, one senator and 27 candidates for members of the House were elected unopposed.”
The OSCE reiterated its recommendation contained in the final report on the 2006 midterm elections: “With a view to ensuring genuine electoral competition in congressional districts, consideration could be given to introducing procedures for drawing district boundaries that will be based on criteria other than voters’ voting histories and perceived future voting intentions.”
Needless to say, this recommendation from the OSCE — of which the U.S. is one of 57 participating states that has made certain commitments to holding democratic elections — has remained unheeded by policymakers in the United States. Indeed, as the current proposals make clear, the election-rigging activities are only intensifying as the Republican Party realizes that its electoral relevance is diminishing in the face of sweeping demographic changes across the country.
The underlying problem, of course, is that the United States uses a decentralized system of election administration in which partisan elected officials on the national, state and local levels are given free reign to draw district boundaries, set the electoral rules, and limit competition from other parties. All of these practices fly in the face of international standards for free and fair elections.
Since the United States began submitting to international election observation following the disputed presidential contest of 2000, certain criticisms have reemerged year after year. While some progress on was noted in 2008 and 2010, changes to the electoral framework since then have revealed a decided indifference of U.S. authorities in meeting international obligations on democratic elections.
The election observation missions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – a 56-nation body to which the U.S. belongs, which is mandated with determining members’ adherence to election commitments laid out in the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document – have repeatedly pointed to systemic problems in the U.S. electoral framework.
In the 2004 election, the OSCE noted that “allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression, primarily among minorities, were widely reported and presented to the EOM in the pre-election period.” The observers expressed concern that “the widespread nature of these allegations may undermine confidence in the electoral process.”
Following the 2008 election, Audrey Glover, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, stated, “The controversies during the campaign over persisting allegations of election irregularities showed that electoral reform efforts must continue to address remaining shortcomings and allow voters to fully regain confidence in the election system.”
Redistricting and Gerrymandering
The OSCE has also noted the fact that “only a small proportion of the elections” for the 435 Congressional districts are actually competitive. “This was attributed largely to the way in which Congressional district boundaries are drawn so as to favour the incumbent party,” the OSCE observed.
The OSCE has recommended that “consideration could be given to introducing procedures for drawing district boundaries that will be based on criteria other than voters’ voting histories and perceived future voting intentions.”
Despite this recommendation, U.S. election authorities have continued the practice of gerrymandering, or drawing district boundaries with a high degree of predictability as to the outcome of the election. This questionable practice has become particularly pronounced in the current election cycle.
Because of population changes, 18 states had changes in their number of seats: Texas and Florida gained four and two seats, respectively, while Ohio and New York both lost two. Six states gained a single seat while eight lost one. These changes affect the number of votes each state will cast in the Electoral College for the 2012 presidential election.
The 2010 census showed an enormous population increase in Texas, in particular, with over four million new residents, the vast majority of whom are Latinos. That growth required the State of Texas to redraw its electoral districts for the U.S. Congress, the State Senate, and the State House of Representatives, in order to comply with the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote rule.
Texas is a “covered jurisdiction” under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires states with a history of discrimination to submit any changes they make to their election procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice or the D.C. Circuit Court for preclearance. Preclearance is necessary to demonstrate that the proposed changes “neither [have] the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” In July 2011, the Texas legislature submitted new electoral maps to the D.C. Circuit Court for review.
The U.S. Justice Department voiced opposition to preclearance, alleging the Texas legislative plan unfairly discriminated against minority voters by giving no “electoral opportunity” for Latinos to be elected.
The most heated fight surrounds Dallas and Fort Worth, where Republicans drew congressional districts that are largely rural, except for small portions that include urban neighborhoods where minorities live. Minority groups complain that despite an 83.7 percent growth in the Latino population and a 34.1 percent increase in African Americans in Dallas County, the Texas legislature did not create a single new congressional district where minorities could realistically succeed.
While the pre-clearance process was pending in Washington, D.C., various plaintiffs brought suit in Texas, claiming that the Texas maps violate the U.S. Constitution and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Noting that the D.C. Court could not finish its work in time for Texas to conduct its 2012 primary elections, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, based in San Antonio, produced its own interim plans. However, the court produced maps which had little bearing with those proposed by Texas’ Republican-controlled legislature.
To decide the validity of the San Antonio maps, Texas filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued in January 2012 that the U.S. District Court should not have ignored the state legislature’s plans when drafting the interim map. On February 28, the federal district court submitted new maps ensuring that both the Republican and the Democratic Party receive two of the four new congressional seats each.
The League of United Latin American Citizens, the NAACP, and three other groups criticized the new maps, arguing they don’t do enough to guarantee minority voters have equal representation. The maps, they explain, reflect the same “intentional discrimination” as the Texas legislature’s maps and either split up minority groups so that their candidates can’t win, or pack minorities into only a handful of districts.
The minority groups have now proceeded to ask the D.C. Circuit Court to expedite its ruling on whether the Texas Legislature’s original maps violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Since national party rules require primary elections be held by June 26, failure to rule in time would mean that this year’s Texas elections would be held under the temporary maps proposed by the San Antonio court.
Minority representatives hope that a favorable decision from the D.C. Circuit Court would compel the federal district court to alter districts ruled to be in violation. In such a case, the Texas primaries would be pushed back for a third time. However, the San Antonio court is not bound to make changes to the 2012 maps based on what is handed down from the three-judge panel in Washington, DC. In that scenario, minority groups would likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to the redistricting controversies, another contentious issue emerging in the current election is regarding the U.S.’s problematic election administration and voting registration system.
In 2008 and 2010, the OSCE noted that the decentralized nature of the U.S. electoral system creates vulnerabilities “in particular with regards to the integrity and complexity of voter registration, voter identification and electronic voting machines.” The OSCE observed that “the possibilities to verify the correctness of the voter register and to crosscheck it with neighboring states, in order to avoid double registrations or multiple voting, are limited and not widely used.”
With these international concerns unaddressed by U.S. election authorities, the systemic problems of the decentralized electoral framework are becoming more pronounced.
In February 2012, research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States showed that the U.S. voter registration system is plagued with errors and inefficiencies, which “undermine voter confidence and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of … elections.”
The Pew Center pointed out that “the paper-based processes of most registration systems present several opportunities for errors.” In particular, the system is unable to keep up with voters as they move or die. In turn, this can lead to problems with the registration rolls, “including the perception that they lack integrity or could be susceptible to fraud.”
The research reveals that:
- approximately 24 million – one in every eight – active voter registrations in the U.S. are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate;
- more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are still listed as active voters;
- approximately 2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.
Americans are generally unaware of these registration problems. According to the study, one in four voters falsely assumes that election officials update registrations automatically. Additionally, more than two million provisional ballots were cast in 2008, requiring election officials to verify each voter’s eligibility. Almost half of those were rejected because the voter was not on the registration rolls.
Further, at least 51 million people – nearly one in four eligible citizens – are not registered to vote.
New restrictions on voting
In the past, one of the few positive developments in U.S. elections that international observers have noted was the effort to increase voter participation by same-day registration initiatives and the introduction of early voting in 2008 and 2010.
In 2008, the OSCE noted that “the increased possibility to vote early was a highly positive step for the U.S. electoral process.” That year, more than a third of American voters voted early: 18 percent of them cast their ballots at early voting sites, while 19 percent voted by mail. This was seen as a particularly positive step, because in past election cycles, hours-long lines effectively disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters.
Following the midterm elections of 2010, OSCE observers again noted the beneficial development of early voting, which facilitated the participation of millions of Americans and “eased any capacity problems that might have occurred.”
However, these positive efforts to increase voter enfranchisement are being rolled back in the current election cycle.
In 2011, state legislatures across the country put forward legislation restricting early voting, citing financial and administrative burdens and sometimes the risk of fraud. Laws restricting early voting were signed into law in Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Bills are pending final approval in North Carolina, Georgia, and New Jersey.
New requirements have also been instated this year to make it more challenging for eligible citizens to ensure that they are registered to vote on Election Day.
Since the previous election cycle, a number of state legislatures have pushed legislation to regulate and restrict community-based voter registration drives. Bills placing new restrictions on voter registration groups have been proposed in seven states: California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Texas.
The bills have been signed into law in Florida and Texas, two states with a long history of restricting voter registration drives, although neither has reported cases of registration fraud in the past election cycle.
Another target in this election cycle is election day registration, also known as same day registration.
Prior to 2011, eight states – Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming – allowed for same day registration, meaning that citizens could register and vote at their local polling place at the same time. In addition, North Carolina allowed for same day registration for the early voting period and Ohio for the first week of early voting. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, election day registration was provided under special circumstances.
Several legislatures have moved to eliminate same day registration, with bills introduced in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio. Efforts to repeal election day registration have fallen almost entirely along partisan lines, with most Republican legislators supporting it, while all Democratic legislators opposing it.
The most widespread legislative development since the previous election cycle involves the imposition of stricter identification requirements on voters.
Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, only Indiana and Georgia had strict photo ID requirements on voters. Since then, laws have been introduced in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Bills were passed but vetoed in five additional states: Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Moreover, a number of other states have active photo ID bills pending on ongoing legislative sessions.
Voting rights advocates maintain that the new legislation is designed to target a wide portion of the electorate – in particular low-income, young, and older citizens, and especially minorities – that do not have state‑issued photo IDs. It is estimated that 11 percent of U.S. citizens do not possess the required identification, and that millions of Americans could be disenfranchised by the new laws.
The largely unregulated role of private money in U.S. elections resulting from the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited spending by corporations, unions and private individuals is another area of concern.
The vast campaign spending in 2010 and the widespread use of negative advertising led the 2010 OSCE election observation mission to describe a “dirty campaign environment” with “money playing a significant role in creating an uneven playing field between candidates.”
“Upwards of four billion dollars were spent on the campaigns, making it the most expensive mid-term election in the United States to date,” OSCE observers noted. “About three-quarters of that money was spent on political campaign ads on television and radio. The ads inundated the airwaves, made huge profits for many television and radio stations, and also turned off many voters.”
With a legislative attempt to mitigate the effects of Citizens United failing in 2010, the problem of out-of-control campaign financing is reaching new heights in the current election cycle. Since July 2010, the number of registered “Super PACs” spending unlimited amounts of money has increased to 354. As of March 6, they had reported total receipts of more than $130 million and independent expenditures totaling almost $98 million in the 2012 election cycle.
Other areas of concern
Since the last presidential election, many other important recommendations from the OSCE on how to improve the deeply flawed U.S. electoral system have remained unaddressed by U.S. policymakers. These include:
- decreasing the number of required signatures for nomination of independent or third-party candidates
- lifting the restriction of voting rights for felons and ex-felons
- providing full representation rights in Congress for all US citizens, including those of Washington DC and U.S. territories
- establishing minimum standards for access of international observers invited by the U.S. authorities
- introducing legal safeguards against possible partisan conduct of election officials
- promoting voter registration, including through civil education programs, and considering possibilities for ‘automatic’ voter registration based on other interactions of citizens with the state
- enhancing transparency and the integrity of electronic voting equipment
- reviewing the campaign finance system
But as the OSCE stated in its Needs Assessment Mission Report prior to the 2008 general elections, “several issues raised in previous OSCE/ODIHR reports, and those highlighted by OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors, merit further attention.”
With Election 2012 now fully underway, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the only changes being made to the U.S. electoral system represent steps backwards rather than forwards.
Instead of heeding previous recommendations from the international community or further developing areas of progress – such as the implementation of early voting in 2008 – the United States is instead backsliding into an even less democratic electoral system.
Besides ensuring pre-determined electoral outcomes, these changes are also sure to further erode public trust in elections, leading to decreased participation in voting and more entrenched cynicism across the country.
They also demonstrate a profound double standard by the United States government, which often cites OSCE election-related commitments when criticizing other countries, but clearly cannot be bothered to live up to the same commitments at home.
- On #HumanRightsDay @ILONews recalls that a fair wage is a basic human right | bit.ly/18yCuiV | #WalmartStrikers #FastFoodStrikers 2 days ago
- On #HumanRightsDay, US urged to stop intervening in other countries and be more consistent on #humanrights | wp.me/p1qqdc-ve 2 days ago
- RT @K_isanasshole: Repost: ECHR hears another CIA rendition case, Ben Emmerson affirms "right to truth". I was there. Commentary: http://t.… 2 days ago
- The US funnels billion$ to richest farmers yet seeks to destroy other countries’ right to protect their poorest. waronwant.org/news/press-rel… #WTO 3 days ago
- RT @InjusticeFacts: In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's the U.S. supplied 93% of the weapons to both sides of the conflict. 3 days ago
- U.S. urged to stop intervening in other countries and be more consistent on human rights
- No apologies for Afghanistan atrocities (except for all the other apologies)
- Angered by NSA abuses, will Europe commit to meaningful counter-measures?
- Police brutality, drone wars and international norms
- Kerry praises Syria’s compliance with CWC, but what about U.S. non-compliance?