Why Was There A Need To Draw Lines That Create Voting Districts?

Gerrymandering Research Paper
Why was there a need to draw lines that create voting districts? The constitution set up the initial way each state would be represented and gave representatives (House of Representatives) that were determined according to population and guaranteed the number of representatives (Senate) that each state would have. The lines were needed to give equal representation for all the districts. Gerrymandering is the illegal practice of redrawing the congressional district lines in such a way as to favor one political party over another. In 1812, then Governor Eldridge Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts. The map resembled the shape of a salamander and “the term ‘gerry-mander’ was later coined in 1812 to mock an oddly shaped district encompassing northern parts of Essex County, Massachusetts” (Wang
1266). Every ten years a census is completed and the legislative district’s population changes. The officeholders are able to redraw the district lines and affect which voters they will be responsible. One method used is packing which places as many voters of one type to inside one district, thus leaving adjacent districts with a majority of voters known to have voted for the opposite party. The other, is the practice of cracking where voters for the opposing party are spread throughout a district to decrease their influence of an election. Political gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral district lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party.
The cracking version of gerrymandering was used effectively in the south to split black districts to prevent the election of any black legislators House of Representatives. Racial gerrymandering originally referred to manipulating legislative district lines to under-represent racial minorities. Tactics such as packing black voters in a given district or cracking them to make black voters a minority in all districts is illegal. This sort of gerrymandering was first used in the South after the Civil War to dilute the black vote. As has been noted with, “known at the time as the “Tuskegee gerrymander” case, Gomillion is usually cited as the first example of the federal courts striking down a racially discriminatory redistricting plan—one of the common forms of minority vote dilution” (McCrary 429). Most recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two districts in North Carolina were unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Now they have to redraw the district lines to give African American representation throughout the districts. This effects the election for the presidency, as a result of having a particular party as the majority. Once the party gains control of a state legislature they will gerrymander the electoral districts to keep control of the state legislature and provide a larger allotment for their party in the U.S. House of Representatives. Therefore, increasing the Electoral College to be comprised of more their party.
The process of gerrymandering creates challenges for authentic representation as guaranteed by the constitution.
Gerrymandering allows for a particular party to get bills passed easily by having a majority of their party in The House of Representatives and Senate. With this increase they will have enough votes to make a bill veto proof. Political and racial gerrymandering are unconstitutional and illegal. As stated in, The voting rights act of 1965 “prohibits spreading minorities across districts”The court’s solution required that states create majority-minority districts — districts in which the majority of the voting-age population belonged to a single minority. With voting that occurred largely along racial lines, these districts allowed minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. But a fascinating development occurred in the years since. These districts, rather than giving African Americans more political power, might have actually started to deprive them of it. Majority-minority districts, by concentrating the minority vote in certain districts, have the unintended consequence of diluting their influence
elsewhere.
Special interest groups support gerrymandering. They are provided funding by corporations and other special interest groups to improve the prospects of their political allies or harm enemies. Politicians are able to draw lines to make district majority their party. As stated by Tom Hofeller, Republican National Committee, in 1990 “that means I could decide I liked the demographics of people on one side of a street more than on the other and draw district line down the middle between them” (Fund 35). Republicans support gerrymandering to keep the Electoral College a majority of their party. The south supports to favor white and republicans in office.
Gerrymandering disproportionately represents one class/political party. This disproportion doesn’t allow fair balanced vote, tips the scale to ensure a certain party will win, creates an official that does not represent an individual. Gerrymandering politicians choose voters and don’t allow voters to choose their politicians Fund states, “opponents of gerrymandering complain that it is almost impossible to educate voters about the serious nature of them-it is inherently an issue only for those who follow political ’inside baseball’” (p35) Democrats are against gerrymandering as a result of it giving the Republicans advantage in the Congress.
Gerrymandering is an illegal issue that is allowing politicians to arrange districts for the benefit of their political party. There should be a balance where neither party has an advantage. Allowing unbiased individuals to draw the lines will decrease the chances of a particular party having control. The redistricting process should be based on measured distance rather than which way voters may vote to give the public a better representation. This will also eliminate any special interest group involvement. If politician were working for the people they are representing they would ensure that gerrymandering was not being executed. As state by Smith, “those in government who are entrusted with the job of making rules of the election game must not be allowed to transform the democratic process into it’s opposite” (p 45).