The Ballot or the Bullet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet 

 

Malcolm X, March 1964

"The Ballot or the Bullet" is the title of a public speech by human rights activist Malcolm X. In the speech, which was delivered on April 3, 1964, at Cory Methodist Church in Cleveland, Ohio, Malcolm X advised African Americans to judiciously exercise their right to vote, but he cautioned that if the government continued to prevent African Americans from attaining full equality, it might be necessary for them to take up arms. It was ranked 7th in the top 100 American speeches of the 20th century by 137 leading scholars of American public address.

Background

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam

On March 8, 1964, Malcolm X announced his separation from the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist religious organization for which he had been the spokesman for nearly a decade. The Nation of Islam, which advocated on behalf of African Americans, had significant disagreements with the Civil Rights Movement. Whereas the Civil Rights Movement advocated on behalf of integration and against segregation, the Nation of Islam favored separatism. One of the goals of the Civil Rights Movement was to end disenfranchisement of African Americans, but the Nation of Islam forbade its members from participating in the political process.

When he left the Nation of Islam, Malcolm declared his willingness to cooperate with the Civil Rights Movement. He reassured leaders of the Civil Rights Movement that "I've forgotten everything bad that [they] have said about me, and I pray they can also forget the many bad things I've said about them."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Further information: Civil Rights Act of 1964

In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent Congress a civil rights bill. The bill proposed a ban on discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin in jobs and public accommodations. Southern Democrats (sometimes called Dixiecrats, though the term is ambiguous and more properly refers to a short-lived separate political party), blocked the bill from consideration by the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party of that era was considerably less progressive (especially in the South) than it is today.

After Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson threw his support behind the civil rights bill. The bill was passed by the House on February 10, 1964, and sent to the Senate for consideration. Southern Democrats had promised to oppose the bill.

The speech

Malcolm X began his speech by acknowledging that he was still a Muslim, but he quickly added that he didn't intend to discuss religion or any other issues that divide African Americans. Instead, he was going to emphasize the common experience of African Americans of all faiths:

It's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem, a common problem — a problem that will make you catch hell whether you're a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist. Whether you're educated or illiterate, whether you live on the boulevard or in the alley, you're going to catch hell just like I am.

The ballot

Malcolm X noted that 1964 was an election year, a year "when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community ... with their false promises which they don't intend to keep". He said that President Johnson and the Democratic Party claimed to support the civil rights bill, and the Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but they had not taken genuine action to pass the bill. Instead, he said, the Democrats blamed the Dixiecrats, who were "nothing but Democrat[s] in disguise". He accused the Democrats of playing a "political con game", with African Americans as its victims.

Malcolm said that African Americans were becoming "politically mature" and recognizing that, through unity and nonalignment, they could be the swing vote in the coming elections and elect candidates who would be attentive to their concerns:

What does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and Black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who's going to sit in the White House and who's going to be in the dog house.

Malcolm described how potent a weapon the ballot could be, if it was exercised with care:

A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

The government

Although he advocated exercising the ballot, Malcolm X expressed skepticism that voting would bring about full equality for African Americans. The government, he said, "is responsible for the oppression and exploitation and degradation of Black people in this country.... This government has failed the Negro".

According to Malcolm, one of the ways in which the government had "failed the Negro" was its unwillingness to enforce the law. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had outlawed segregation:

Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It outlawed segregation. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law.

But, he said, the police department and local government often sided with segregationists against the Civil Rights Movement.

Malcolm said that relying on the federal government to force local governments to obey civil rights laws was futile. "When you take your case to Washington, D.C., you're taking it to the criminal who's responsible; it's like running from the wolf to the fox. They're all in cahoots together".

Human rights

The proper solution, Malcolm X said, was to elevate the struggle of African Americans from one of civil rights to one of human rights. A fight for civil rights was a domestic matter, and "no one from the outside world can speak out in your behalf as long as your struggle is a civil-rights struggle".

Malcolm said that changing the fight for African-American equality to a human rights issue changed it from a domestic problem to an international matter that could be heard by the United Nations. He contrasted civil rights, which he described as "asking Uncle Sam to treat you right", to human rights, which he called "your God-given rights" and "the rights that are recognized by all nations of this earth". He said that the people of the developing world were "sitting there waiting to throw their weight on our side" if the fight for civil rights were expanded into a human rights struggle.

Black nationalism

Malcolm X described his continued commitment to black nationalism, which he defined as the philosophy that African Americans should govern their own communities. He said that Black nationalists believe that African Americans should control the politics and the economy in their communities and that they need to remove the vices, such as alcoholism and drug addiction, that afflict their communities.

Malcolm said that the philosophy of Black nationalism was being taught in the major civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, CORE, and SNCC.

Black nationalism was characterized by its political, social, and economic philosophies. The political philosophy is self-government. The local governments of the African-American communities should be managed by African Americans. African Americans should be "re-educated into the science of politics" in order to understand the importance and effect of the vote they cast:

Don't be throwing out any ballots. A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

The economic philosophy of black nationalism promotes African-American control of the economy of the African-American community. In frequenting stores not owned by an African American, the money is given to another community. The dollar is taken from the African-American community and given to outsiders. In doing so, the African-American community loses money and becomes poorer while the community the dollar was given to gains money and becomes richer. Therefore, stores in the African-American community should be run by African Americans:

Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere.

The social philosophy of black nationalism advocates for reform of the community and reconstruction of it so it is more welcoming:

We ourselves have to lift the level of our community to a higher level, make our own society beautiful so that we will be satisfied in our own circles and won't be running around here try to knock our way into a social circle where we're not wanted.

Most of all, Malcolm promoted unity:

We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth so we can develop unity and harmony that's necessary to get this problem solved ourselves.

Self-defense

Malcolm X addressed the issue of "rifles and shotguns", a controversy that had dogged him since his March 8 announcement that he had left the Nation of Islam. He reiterated his position that if the government is "unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes", African Americans should defend themselves. He advised his listeners to be mindful of the law — "This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks ... that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal" — but he said that if white people didn't want African Americans to arm themselves, the government should do its job.

The bullet

Malcolm X referred to "the type of Black man on the scene in America today [who] doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer", and warned that if politicians failed to keep their promises to African Americans, they made violence inevitable:

It's time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet.

Malcolm predicted that if the civil rights bill wasn't passed, there would be a march on Washington in 1964. Unlike the 1963 March on Washington, which was peaceful and integrated, the 1964 march Malcolm described would be an all-Black "non-nonviolent army" with one-way tickets.

But, Malcolm said, there was still time to prevent this situation from developing:

Lyndon B. Johnson is the head of the Democratic Party. If he's for civil rights, let him go into the Senate next week and ... denounce the Southern branch of his party. Let him go in there right now and take a moral stand — right now, not later. Tell him, don't wait until election time. If he waits too long ... he will be responsible for letting a condition develop in this country which will create a climate that will bring seeds up out of the ground with vegetation on the end of them looking like something these people never dreamed of. In 1964, it's the ballot or the bullet.

Analysis

"The Ballot or the Bullet" served several purposes at a critical point in Malcolm X's life: it was part of his effort to distance himself from the Nation of Islam, and it was intended to reach out to moderate civil rights leaders. At the same time, the speech indicated that Malcolm still supported Black nationalism and self-defense and thus had not made a complete break with his past. "The Ballot or the Bullet" also marked a notable shift in Malcolm X's rhetoric, as he presented previously undiscussed ways of looking at the relationship between blacks and whites.

Separation from the Nation of Islam

In its advocacy of voting, "The Ballot or the Bullet" presented ideas opposite to those of the Nation of Islam, which forbade its members from participating in the political process.

Malcolm also chose not to discuss the religious differences that divide Muslims and Christians, a common theme of his speeches when he was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam. In "The Ballot or the Bullet", Malcolm chose not to discuss religion but rather to stress the experiences common to African Americans of all backgrounds.

Black nationalism

When Malcolm X spoke of "the type of Black man on the scene in America today [who] doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer", he was addressing his followers, people who were not advocates of the non-violent approach generally favored by the Civil Rights Movement. Likewise, by stating his continued commitment to Black nationalism, Malcolm reassured his followers that he had not made a complete break with his past.

One biographer notes that Malcolm was one of the first African-American leaders to note the existence and growing influence of Black nationalism among young civil rights activists.

Rhetoric

"The Ballot or the Bullet" further indicates a shift in Malcolm X's rhetoric, as his separation from the Nation of Islam and new, unfettered public activism prompted a change in the ways he addressed his audience. Malcolm X maintained his use of repetition as "communications of the passion that is satisfied by a single statement, but that beats through the pulses", and this can be exemplified by his consistent use of the phrase "the ballot or the bullet". In addition, Malcolm X intended his characteristic use of language and imagery to disguise his conceptions of society and history in new ways to put issues into his perspective for his audience and inspire activism. The most significant modification of Malcolm X's rhetoric that can be observed in "The Ballot or the Bullet" is the broadening of his audience, as he "emphasizes individualized judgement rather than group cohesion" and allows for more analytical "flexibility restrained by a purposive focus on particular goals." These changes expanded his appeal, therefore expanding his audience, illustrating his ability to use the freedom he found after separating from the Nation of Islam to his advantage in advancing himself as a member of the Civil Rights Movement.

Black suffrage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States 

Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The history of black suffrage in the United States, or the right of African Americans to vote in elections, has had many advances and setbacks. Prior to the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, some blacks in the United States had the right to vote, but this right was often abridged or taken away. After 1870, blacks were theoretically equal before the law, but in the period between the end of Reconstruction era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 this was frequently infringed in practice.

Background

1876 cartoon illustrating opposition to black suffrage

At the founding of the country, the right to vote was restricted to "gentlemen of property and standing"; most Blacks did not own enough property to vote. Removal of the property requirements, so as to enfranchise poor whites, meant that Blacks would be able to vote too, so the search began for other means to disenfranchise them. Early legal acts, like the Naturalization Act of 1790, granted naturalized citizenship to "free white person[s]...of good character", thus excluding slaves, free blacks, Native Americans, indentured servants, and Asians. However, states were allowed to grant voting rights at the state level. Prior to the Civil War, free blacks had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807) and Pennsylvania (1838). During this time, abolitionists sought to end slavery, and the call for suffrage grew. The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that persons of African heritage were not U.S. citizens. Rather than settling the issue, as President Buchanan hoped, it produced outrage and is a major item among the causes of the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment gave all males the vote, but in practice blacks still faced obstacles. Some of the "Black Codes" passed shortly after the legal abolition of slavery explicitly prevented blacks from voting. The Enforcement Acts increased federal penalties for voter intimidation, particularly by white terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Blacks seeking suffrage were often met with violence and disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era ended and there were no longer federal troops enforcing Negro rights in the states of the former Confederacy. The 1873 Colfax massacre occurred when white locals fought with blacks and federal troops over black voting in Grant Parish, Louisiana. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated some of the Enforcement Acts, ruling that the federal government could only intervene to prevent discrimination by state actors. In United States v. Reese (1876), the Court upheld voting requirements, such as literacy tests, which do not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race. Jim Crow laws enforcing legal racial segregation at the state and local level in the Southern United States were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by blacks during the Reconstruction Era.

Blacks continuously worked towards overcoming these barriers. A group of black activists formed the Niagara Movement in 1905, rebuking the 1895 Atlanta compromise of Booker T. Washington and issuing a declaration that demanded universal male suffrage. From the Niagara Movement came the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, formed in 1910, which pursued voting rights mostly through the courts. In Guinn v. United States (1915), the Supreme Court struck down a grandfather clause that functionally exempted only white people from literacy tests. The Court ruled against white primaries in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) and Nixon v. Condon (1932), upheld white primaries in Grovey v. Townsend (1935), and finally banned them with Smith v. Allwright (1944) and Terry v. Adams (1953). In Breedlove v. Suttles (1937), The Court upheld the constitutionality of a poll tax requirement for voting.

The Civil Rights Movement brought renewed attention to black voting rights. Florida voting rights activists Harriette Moore and Harry T. Moore were assassinated by the KKK in 1951. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) the Supreme Court struck down a plan to redraw the district lines of Tuskegee, Alabama, on the grounds that it would disenfranchise black voters. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1962–1964, banned poll taxes as a precondition for voting in federal elections. The Supreme Court ruled against state poll taxes in 1966 in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. Civil rights leaders began organized campaigns to register black voters, including the federally endorsed Voter Education Project. A particularly intense voting rights struggle in Mississippi led to the death of Medgar Evers in 1963 and of three civil rights volunteers during the Freedom Summer campaign in 1964. Organizers also created the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to challenge the white-dominated Mississippi Democratic Party. In Alabama, the highly publicized Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 met with a violent response, bringing more scrutiny to suppression of black voters. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited a variety of discriminatory state voting practices. The Supreme Court upheld this law in the 1966 decision South Carolina v. Katzenbach.

Since the 1960s, the practice of gerrymandering—drawing the boundaries of each Congressional district, which are redone after every census, so as to maximize white and minimize Black political power—has been identified as a threat to black voting rights in the U.S. The Supreme Court limited the Gomillion decision in Mobile v. Bolden (1980), distinguishing between racist effects and racist intent, and prohibiting only the latter. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Reno (1993) that if a redistricting plan is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'", it must be held to a "strict scrutiny" standard under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has since struck down redistricting plans for racial gerrymandering in Miller v. Johnson (1995), Bush v. Vera (1996), and several more cases. However, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), holding that the racist practices that necessitated the law in 1965 no longer existed in 2013. Contrary to the Court's finding, jurisdictions then proceeded to make voting more difficult, closing polling places in Black neighborhoods, and requiring an official state ID to vote, something Black voters are less likely than white voters to have, while simultaneously closing offices where the IDs could be obtained. While claiming that these measures prevented voting fraud (which multiple investigations have found to be rare in the 21st-century United States), the clear result, and arguably the clear intent, was to reduce African-American voting in Southern states.

Black women's suffrage movement

Main article: African-American women's suffrage movement

 

Banner with the National Association of Colored Women's Clubs' motto. Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture

Black women began to work for political rights in the 1830s in New York and Philadelphia. Throughout the 19th century, black women like Harriet Forten Purvis, Mary Ann Shadd Cary, and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper worked on black civil rights, like the right to vote. Black women had to fight for racial equality, as well as women's rights. They were often marginalized because of their race and their gender. This led to the creation of groups like the National Association of Colored Women. Black women gained the legal right to vote with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. With women gaining the vote, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, black women became a powerful voting block.

See also

• 1869 Convention of Colored Citizens of Minnesota
• The Ballot or the Bullet
• Black nationalism
• Racial Equality Proposal, 1919
• Mary Church Terrell
• Universal suffrage
• Women's suffrage in the United States

Gerrymandering in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States 

 

"The Gerry-mander" first appeared in this cartoon-map in the Boston Gazette, March 26, 1812.

Gerrymandering in the United States has been used to increase the power of a political party. Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined by a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry that was named because one of the districts looked like a salamander.

In the United States, redistricting takes place in each state about every ten years, after the decennial census. It defines geographical boundaries, with each district within a state being geographically contiguous and having about the same number of state voters. The resulting map affects the elections of the state's members of the US House of Representatives and the state legislative bodies. Redistricting has always been regarded as a political exercise and in most states, it is controlled by state legislators and governor. When one party controls the state's legislative bodies and governor's office, it is in a strong position to gerrymander district boundaries to advantage its side and to disadvantage its political opponents. Since 2010, detailed maps and high-speed computing have facilitated gerrymandering by political parties in the redistricting process, in order to gain control of state legislation and congressional representation, and to potentially maintain that control over several decades even against shifting political changes in a state's population. Gerrymandering has been sought as unconstitutional in many instances. Even as redistricting can advantage the party in control of the process, political science research suggests that its effects are not as large as critics may say. It does not necessarily "advantage incumbents, reduce competitiveness, or exacerbate political polarization."

Typical gerrymandering cases in the United States take the form of partisan gerrymandering, which is aimed at favor in one political party or weaken another; bipartisan gerrymandering, which is aimed at protecting incumbents by multiple political parties; and racial gerrymandering, which is aimed at weakening the power of minority voters.

Gerrymandering can also recreate districts with the aim of maximizing the number of racial minorities to assist particular nominees, who are minorities themselves. In some other cases that have the same goal of diluting the minority vote, the districts are reconstructed in a way that packs minority voters into a smaller or limited number of districts.

In the 20th century and afterwards, federal courts have deemed extreme cases of gerrymandering to be unconstitutional but have struggled with how to define the types of gerrymandering and the standards that should be used to determine which redistricting maps are unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has affirmed in Miller v. Johnson (1995) that racial gerrymandering is a violation of constitutional rights and upheld decisions against redistricting that is purposely devised based on race. However, the Supreme Court has struggled as to when partisan gerrymandering occurs (Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) and Gill v. Whitford (2018)) and a landmark decision, Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), ultimately decided that questions of partisan gerrymandering represent a nonjusticiable political question, which cannot be dealt with by the federal court system. That decision leaves it to states and to Congress to develop remedies to challenge and to prevent partisan gerrymandering. Some states have created independent redistricting commissions to reduce political drivers for redistricting.

Partisan gerrymandering

Origins (1789–2000)

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn Congressional electoral district of South Essex County drawn by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts as a dragon-like "monster." Federalist newspapers editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry's last name.

Partisan gerrymandering, which refers to redistricting that favors one political party, has a long tradition in the United States.

Starting from the William Cabell Rives in mid-19th century it is often stated that it precedes the 1789 election of the First U.S. Congress: namely, that while Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist allies were in control of the Virginia House of Delegates in 1788, they drew the boundaries of Virginia's 5th congressional district in an unsuccessful attempt to keep James Madison out of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, in early 20th century it was revealed that this theory was based on incorrect claims by Madison and his allies, and recent historical research disproved it altogether.

The word gerrymander (originally written "Gerry-mander") was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette (not to be confused with the Boston Gazette) on March 26, 1812 in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814), who signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts to the north of Boston was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

The coiner of the term "gerrymander" may never be firmly established. Historians widely believe that the Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, and Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record does not have definitive evidence as to who created or uttered the word for the first time. Appearing with the term, and helping to spread and sustain its popularity, was a political cartoon depicting a strange animal with claws, wings and a dragon-like head satirizing the map of the odd-shaped district. This cartoon was most likely drawn by Elkanah Tisdale, an early 19th-century painter, designer, and engraver who was living in Boston at the time. The word gerrymander was reprinted numerous times in Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts, New England, and nationwide during the remainder of 1812.

Gerrymandering soon began to be used to describe not only the original Massachusetts example, but also other cases of district-shape manipulation for partisan gain in other states. The first known use outside the immediate Boston area came in the Newburyport Herald of Massachusetts on March 31, and the first known use outside Massachusetts came in the Concord Gazette of New Hampshire on April 14, 1812. The first known use outside New England came in the New York Gazette & General Advertiser on May 19. What may be the first use of the term to describe the redistricting in another state (Maryland) occurred in the Federal Republican (Georgetown, Washington, DC) on October 12, 1812. There are at least 80 known citations of the word from March through December 1812 in American newspapers.

The practice of gerrymandering the borders of new states continued past the Civil War and into the late 19th century. The Republican Party used its control of Congress to secure the admission of more states in territories friendly to their party. A notable example is the admission of Dakota Territory as two states instead of one. By the rules for representation in the Electoral College, each new state carried at least three electoral votes, regardless of its population.

From time to time, other names are given the "-mander" suffix to tie a particular effort to a particular politician or group. These include "Jerrymander" (a reference to California Governor Jerry Brown), and "Perrymander" (a reference to Texas Governor Rick Perry).

In the 1960s, a series of "one person, one vote" cases were decided by the Supreme Court, which resulted in a mandate of redistricting in response to the results of each census. Prior to these decisions, many states had stopped redrawing their districts. As a result of the periodic need to redistrict, political conflicts over redistricting have sharply increased.

2000-2010

The potential to gerrymander a district map has been aided by advances in computing power and capabilities. Using geographic information system and census data as input, mapmakers can use computers to process through numerous potential map configurations to achieve desired results, including partisan gerrymandering. Computers can assess voter preferences and use that to "pack" or "crack" votes into districts. Packing votes refers to concentrating voters in one voting district by redrawing congressional boundaries so that those in opposition of the party in charge of redistricting are placed into one larger district, therefore reducing the party's congressional representation. Cracking refers to diluting the voting power of opposition voters across many districts by redrawing congressional boundaries so that voting minority populations in each district are reduced, therefore lowering the chance of a district-oriented congressional takeover. Both techniques lead to what the Times describes as "wasted votes," which are votes that do not supply a party with any victory. These can either be a surplus of votes in one district for one party that are above the threshold needed to win, or any vote that has resulted in a loss. A study done by the University of Delaware mentions situations in which an incumbent that is required to live in the district they represent can be "hijacked" or "kidnapped" into a neighboring district due to the redrawing of congressional boundaries, subsequently placing them in districts that are more difficult for them to win in. Partisan gerrymandering oftentimes leads to benefits for a particular political party, or, in some cases, a race.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican-dominated state legislature used gerrymandering to help defeat Democratic representative Frank Mascara. Mascara was elected to Congress in 1994. In 2002, the Republican Party altered the boundaries of his original district so much that he was pitted against fellow Democratic candidate John Murtha in the election. The shape of Mascara's newly drawn district formed a finger that stopped at his street, encompassing his house, but not the spot where he parked his car. Murtha won the election in the newly formed district.

State legislatures have used gerrymandering along racial or ethnic lines both to decrease and increase minority representation in state governments and congressional delegations. In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African-American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates.

International election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, who were invited to observe and report on the 2004 national elections, expressed criticism of the U.S. congressional redistricting process and made a recommendation that the procedures be reviewed to ensure genuine competitiveness of congressional election contests.

2010-2020

In the lead-up to the 2010 United States elections, the Republican party initiated a program called REDMAP, the Redistricting Majority Project, which recognized that the party in control of state legislatures would have the ability to set their congressional and legislative district maps based on the pending 2010 United States Census in manner to assure that party's control over the next ten years. The Republicans took significant gains from the 2010 elections across several states, and by 2011 and 2012, some of the new district maps showed Republican advantage through perceived partisan gerrymandering. This set the stage for several legal challenges from voters and groups in the court system, including several heard at the Supreme Court level.

In 2015, Thomas Hofeller was hired by the Washington Free Beacon to analyze what would happen if political maps were drawn based on the population of U.S. citizens of voting age rather than on the total population. He concluded that doing so “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites." Although the study was not published, it was discovered after his death in 2018. Attorney General William P. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. have refused to cooperate with an investigation into why the Trump administration added a U.S. citizenship question to the 2020 census and specifically whether it seeks to benefit Republicans as suggested by Hofeller's study.

Several state court rulings found partisan gerrymandering to be impermissible under state constitutions, and several state ballot measures passed in 2018 that require non-partisan commissions for the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Further information: 2020 United States redistricting cycle

Legality

U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red) in 2002, left, and 2004, right. In 2003, the majority of Republicans in the Texas legislature redistricted the state, diluting the voting power of the heavily Democratic county by parceling its residents out to more Republican districts. In 2004 the orange district 25 was intended to elect a Democrat while the yellow and pink district 21 and district 10 were intended to elect Republicans. District 25 was redrawn as the result of a 2006 Supreme Court decision. In the 2011 redistricting, Republicans divided Travis County between five districts, only one of which, extending to San Antonio, elects a Democrat.

 

2018 election results for the US House of Representatives, showing Democratic Party vote share and seat share. While the overall vote share and seat share were the same at 54%, there were several states with significant differences in share. Note that several states with few or one representative appear at the 0 or 100% seat share. States with more representatives and sizable share differences are more analytically relevant for evaluating the risk of gerrymandering.

Federal courts

Whether a redistricting results in a partisan gerrymandering has been a frequent question put to the United States court system, but which the courts have generally avoided a strong ruling for fear of showing political bias towards either of the major parties. The Supreme Court had ruled in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause and is a justiciable matter. However, in its decision, the Court could not agree on the appropriate constitutional standard against which legal claims of partisan gerrymandering should be evaluated. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice White said that partisan gerrymandering occurred when a redistricting plan was enacted with both the intent and the effect of discriminating against an identifiable political group. Justices Powell and Stevens said that partisan gerrymandering should be identified based on multiple factors, such as electoral district shape and adherence to local government boundaries. Justices O'Connor, Burger, and Rehnquist disagreed with the view that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable and would have held that such claims should not be recognized by courts. Lower courts found it difficult to apply Bandemer, and only in one subsequent case, Party of North Carolina v. Martin (1992), did a lower court strike down a redistricting plan on partisan gerrymandering grounds.

The Supreme Court revisited the concept of partisan gerrymandering claims in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). While the Court upheld that partisan gerrymandering could be justiciable, the justices were divided in this specific case as no clear standard against which to evaluate partisan gerrymandering claims emerged. Writing for a plurality, Justice Scalia said that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable. A majority of the court would continue to allow partisan gerrymandering claims to be considered justiciable, but those justices had divergent views on how such claims should be evaluated. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence with the plurality, offered that a manageable means to determine when partisan gerrymandering occurred could be developed, and challenged lower courts to find such means. The Court again upheld that partisan gerrymandering could be justiciable in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006). While the specific case reached no conclusion of whether there was partisan gerrymandering, Justice John Paul Stevens's concurrence with the plurality added the notion of partisan symmetry, in that the electoral system should translate votes to representative seats with the same efficiency regardless of party.

Opinions from Vieth and League, as well as the strong Republican advantage created by its REDMAP program, had led to a number of political scholars working alongside courts to develop such a method to determine if a district map was a justiciable partisan gerrymandering, as to prepare for the 2020 elections. Many early attempts failed to gain traction the court system, focusing more on trying to show how restricting maps were intended to favor one party or disfavor the other, or that the redistricting eschewed traditional redistricting approaches. Around 2014, Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee developed the "efficiency gap", a means to measure the number of wasted votes (votes either far in excess of what we necessary to secure a win for a party, or votes for a party that had little chase to win) within each district. The larger the gap of wasted votes between the two parties implied the more likely that the district maps supported a partisan gerrymandering, and with a sufficiently large gap it would be possible to sustain that gap indefinitely. While not perfect, having several potential flaws when geography of urban centers were considered, the efficiency gap was considered to be the first tool that met both Kennedy's and Stevens' suggestions.

The first major legal test of the efficiency gap came into play for Gill v. Whitford (2016). The District Court in the case used the efficiency gap statistic to evaluate the claim of partisan gerrymander in Wisconsin's legislative districts. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, the efficiency gap was 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans. "Republicans in Wisconsin won 60 of the 99 Assembly seats, despite Democrats having a majority of the statewide vote."

Moving the Harris's from a Democratic, Milwaukee district into a larger Republican area was part of a strategy known as 'packing and cracking.' Heavily Democratic Milwaukee voters were 'packed' together in fewer districts, while other sections of Milwaukee were 'cracked' and added to several Republican districts ... diluting that Democratic vote. The result? Three fewer Democrats in the state assembly representing the Milwaukee area.

— PBS NewsHour October 1, 2017

The disparity led to the federal lawsuit Gill v. Whitford, in which plaintiffs alleged that voting districts were gerrymandered unconstitutionally. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The District Court's ruling was challenged and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which in June 2017 agreed to hear oral arguments in the case in the 2017–2018 term of court.The case was then dismissed due to lack of standing for the plaintiffs with no decision on the merits being made. The case was then remanded for further proceedings to demonstrate standing. While previous redistricting cases before the Supreme Court have involved the Equal Protection test, this case also centers on the applicability of the First Amendment freedom of association clause.

Benisek v. Lamone was a separate partisan gerrymandering case heard by the Supreme Court in the 2017 term, this over perceived Democratic-favored redistricting of Maryland's 6th congressional district, with plaintiffs trying to get a stay on the use of the new district maps prior to the October 2018 general election. The Court did not give opinions on whether the redistricting was unconstitutional, but did establish that on the basis of Gill that the case should be reconsidered at the District Court. The District Court did subsequently rule the redistricting was unconstitutional, and that decision was appealed again to the Supreme Court, who have agreed to hear the case in the 2018 term as Lamone v. Benisek.

Yet another partisan redistricting case was heard by the Supreme Court during the 2018 term. Rucho v. Common Cause deals with Republican-favored gerrymandering in North Carolina. The District Court had ruled the redistricting was unconstitutional prior to Gill; an initial challenge brought to the Supreme Court resulted in an order for the District Court to re-evaluate their decision in light of Gill. The District Court, on rehearing, affirmed their previous decision. The state Republicans again sought for review by the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to issue its opinion by June 2018.

Similarly, Michigan's post-2010 redistricting has been challenged, and in April 2019, a federal court determined the Republican-led redistricting to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, and orders the state to redraw districts in time for the 2020 election. Within a week, a similar decision was arrived by a federal district court reviewing Ohio's district maps since 2012 and were declared unconstitutional as they were drawn by the Republican-majority lawmakers with "invidious partisan intent", and ordered the maps redrawn. The Republican-favored maps led Ohio's residents to vote for a statewide initiative that requires the new redistricting maps after the 2020 Census to have at least 50% approval from the minority party. The Republican party sought an immediate challenge to the redistricting order, and by late May 2019, the Supreme Court ordered both the court-ordered redrawing to be put on hold until Republicans can prepare a complete petition, without commenting on the merits of the case otherwise. Additionally, observers to the Supreme Court recognized that the Court would be issuing its orders to the North Carolina and Maryland cases, which would likely affect how the Michigan and Ohio court orders would be interpreted.

Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek were decided on June 27, 2019, which, in the 5–4 decision, determined that judging partisan gerrymandering cases is outside of the remit of the federal court system due to the political questions involved. The majority opinion stated that extreme partisan gerrymandering is still unconstitutional, but it is up to Congress and state legislative bodies to find ways to restrict that, such as through the use of independent redistricting commissions.

State courts

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that gerrymandering was unconstitutional, ruling that the districts drawn to favor Republicans violated "free and equal" Elections Clause of the Pennsylvanian constitution and redrew the districts after the state government failed to comply with the deadline in its order to redraw. The U.S. Supreme Court denied to hear the challenge and allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court maps to remain in place.

In October 2019, a three-judge panel in North Carolina threw out a gerrymandered electoral map, citing violation of the constitution to disadvantage the Democratic Party.

Bipartisan gerrymandering (favoring incumbents)

Bipartisan gerrymandering, where redistricting favors the incumbents in both the Democratic and Republican parties, became especially relevant in the 2000 redistricting process, which created some of the most non-competitive redistricting plans in American history. The Supreme Court held in Gaffney v. Cummings (1973) that bipartisan gerrymanders are constitutionally permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

Racial gerrymandering

See also: Politics of the United States

Racial makeup can be used as a means to create gerrymanders. There is overlap between racial and partisan gerrymandering, as minorities tend to favor Democratic candidates; the North Carolina redistricting in Rucho v. Common Cause was such a case dealing with both partisan and racial gerrymanders. However, racial gerrymanders can also be created without considerations of party lines.

Negative

"Negative racial gerrymandering" refers to a process in which district lines are drawn to prevent racial minorities from electing their preferred candidates. Between the Reconstruction Era and mid-20th century, white Southern Democrats effectively controlled redistricting throughout the Southern United States. In areas where some African-American and other minorities succeeded in registering, some states created districts that were gerrymandered to reduce the voting impact of minorities. Minorities were effectively deprived of their franchise into the 1960s. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments, redistricting to carve maps to intentionally diminish the power of voters who were in a racial or linguistic minority, was prohibited. The Voting Rights Act was amended by Congress in the 1980s, Congress to "make states redraw maps if they have a discriminatory effect." In July, 2017, San Juan County, Utah was ordered to redraw its county commission and school board election districts again after "U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that they were unconstitutional." It was argued that the voice of Native Americans, who were in the majority, had been suppressed "when they are packed into gerrymandered districts."

Affirmative

Shaw v. Reno was a United States Supreme Court case involving a claim that North Carolina's 12th congressional district (pictured) was affirmatively racially gerrymandered.

While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993), holding that plaintiffs "may state a claim by alleging that [redistricting] legislation, though race neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification". The Supreme Court reasoned that these claims were cognizable because relying on race in redistricting "reinforces racial stereotypes and threatens to undermine our system of representative democracy by signaling to elected officials that they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole". Later opinions characterized the type of unconstitutional harm created by racial gerrymandering as an "expressive harm", which law professors Richard Pildes and Richard Neimi have described as a harm "that results from the idea or attitudes expressed through a governmental action."

Subsequent cases further defined the counters of racial gerrymandering claims and how those claims relate to the Voting Rights Act. In United States v. Hays (1995), the Supreme Court held that only those persons who reside in a challenged district may bring a racial gerrymandering claim. In Miller v. Johnson (1995), the Supreme Court held that a redistricting plan must be subjected to strict scrutiny if the jurisdiction used race as the "predominant factor" in determining how to draw district lines. The court defined "predominance" as meaning that the jurisdiction gave more priority to racial considerations than to traditional redistricting principles such as "compactness, contiguity, [and] respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests." In determining whether racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting principles, courts may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence of the jurisdiction's intent in drawing the district lines, and irregularly-shaped districts constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the jurisdiction relied predominately on race. If a court concludes that racial considerations predominated, then a redistricting plan is considered a "racially gerrymandered" plan and must be subjected to strict scrutiny, meaning that the redistricting plan will be upheld as constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. In Bush v. Vera (1996), the Supreme Court in a plurality opinion assumed that compliance with Section 2 or Section 5 of the Act constituted compelling interests, and lower courts have treated these two interests as the only compelling interests that may justify the creation of racially gerrymandered districts.

In Hunt v. Cromartie (1999) and its follow-up case Easley v. Cromartie (2001), the Supreme Court approved a racially focused gerrymandering of a congressional district on the grounds that the definition was not pure racial gerrymandering but instead partisan gerrymandering, which is constitutionally permissible. With the increasing racial polarization of parties in the South in the U.S. as conservative whites move from the Democratic to the Republican Party, gerrymandering may become partisan and also achieve goals for ethnic representation.

Various examples of affirmative racial gerrymandering have emerged. When the state legislature considered representation for Arizona's Native American reservations, they thought each needed their own House member, because of historic conflicts between the Hopi and Navajo nations. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo reservation, the legislature created an unusual district configuration for the 2nd congressional district that featured a fine filament along a river course several hundred miles in length to attach the Hopi reservation to the rest of the district; the arrangement lasted until 2013. The California state legislature created a congressional district (2003–2013) that extended over a narrow coastal strip for several miles. It ensured that a common community of interest will be represented, rather than having portions of the coastal areas be split up into districts extending into the interior, with domination by inland concerns.

In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the United States Supreme Court upheld on June 28, 2006, most of a Texas congressional map suggested in 2003 by former United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and enacted by the state of Texas. The 7–2 decision allows state legislatures to redraw and gerrymander districts as often as they like (not just after the decennial census). In his dissenting opinion in LULAC v. Perry, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, quoted Bill Ratliffe, former Texas lieutenant governor and member of the Texas state senate saying, "political gain for the Republicans was 110% the motivation for the plan," and argued that a plan whose "sole intent" was partisan could violate the Equal Protection Clause. This was notable as previously Justice Stevens had joined Justice Breyer's opinion in Easley v. Cromartie, which held that explicitly partisan motivation for gerrymanders was permissible and a defense against claims of racial gerrymandering. Thus they may work to protect their political parties' standing and number of seats, so long as they do not harm racial and ethnic minority groups. A 5–4 majority declared one congressional district unconstitutional in the case because of harm to an ethnic minority.

Inclusion of prisons

Since the 1790 United States Census, the United States Census Bureau has counted prisoner populations as residents of the districts in which they are incarcerated, rather than in the same district as their previous pre-incarceration residence. In jurisdictions where incarcerated people cannot vote, moving boundaries around a prison can create a district out of what would otherwise be a population of voters which is too small. One extreme example is Waupun, Wisconsin, where two city council districts are made up of 61% and 76% incarcerated people, but as of 2019, neither elected representative has visited the local prisons.

In 2018, the Census Bureau announced that it would retain the policy, asserting that the policy "is consistent with the concept of usual residence, as established by the Census Act of 1790," but also conceding assistance to states who wish "'to 'move' their prisoner population back to the prisoners' pre-incarceration addresses for redistricting and other purposes". A number of states have since ordered their state governments to recognize incarcerated persons as residents of their pre-incarceration homes for the sake of legislative and congressional redistricting at all levels, including Maryland (2010), New York (2010) in time for the 2010 Census, and California (2011), Delaware (2010), Nevada (2019) and Washington State (2019), New Jersey (2020), Colorado (2020), Virginia (2020) and Connecticut (2021) in time for the 2020 Census. Colorado (2002), Michigan (1966), Tennessee (2016) and Virginia (2013) have passed laws restricting counties and municipalities from (or allowing counties and municipalities to avoid) prison-based redistricting, and Massachusetts passed a 2014 resolution requesting the Census Bureau to end the practice of counting prisoners in their incarceration districts.

Remedies

Various political and legal remedies have been used or proposed to diminish or prevent gerrymandering in the country.

Neutral redistricting criteria

Various constitutional and statutory provisions may compel a court to strike down a gerrymandered redistricting plan. At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering. If the jurisdiction fails to propose a new redistricting plan, or its proposed redistricting plan continues to violate the law, then the court itself must draw a redistricting plan that cures the violation and use its equitable powers to impose the plan on the jurisdiction.

In the Supreme Court case of Karcher v. Daggett (1983), a New Jersey redistricting plan was overturned when it was found to be unconstitutional by violating the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. Despite the state claiming its unequal redistricting was done to preserve minority voting power, the court found no evidence to support this and deemed the redistricting unconstitutional.

At the state level, state courts may order or impose redistricting plans on jurisdictions where redistricting legislation prohibits gerrymandering. For example, in 2010 Florida adopted two state constitutional amendments that prohibit the Florida Legislature from drawing redistricting plans that favor or disfavor any political party or incumbent. Ohio residents passed an initiative in 2018 that requires the redistricting maps to have at least 50% approval by the minority party in the legislature.

Moon Duchin, a Tufts University professor, has proposed the use of metric geometry to measure gerrymandering for forensic purposes.

Redistricting commissions

Congressional redistricting methods by state after the 2010 census:
  State legislatures control redistricting
  Commissions control redistricting
  Nonpartisan staff develop the maps, which are then voted on by the state legislature
  No redistricting due to having only one congressional district

Some states have established non-partisan redistricting commissions with redistricting authority. Washington, Arizona, and California have created standing committees for redistricting following the 2010 census. However, it has been argued that the Californian standing committee has failed to end gerrymandering. Rhode Island and the New Jersey Redistricting Commission have developed ad hoc committees, but developed the past two decennial reapportionments tied to new census data.

The Arizona State Legislature challenged the constitutionality of a non-partisan commission, rather than the legislature, for redistricting. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of non-partisan commissions.

Alternative voting systems

The predominant voting system in the United States is a first-past-the-post system that uses single-member districts. Various alternative district-based voting systems that do not rely on redistricting, or rely on redistricting minimally, have been proposed that may mitigate against the ability to gerrymander. These systems typically involve a form of at-large elections or multimember districts. Examples of such systems include the single-transferable vote, cumulative voting, and limited voting.

Proportional voting systems, such as those used in all but three European states, would bypass the problem altogether. In these systems, the party that gets, for example, 30 percent of the votes gets roughly 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. Although it is common for European states to have more than two parties, a sufficiently high election threshold can limit the number of parties elected. Some proportional voting systems have no districts or larger multimember districts and may break the strong constituency link, a cornerstone of current American politics, by eliminating the dependency of individual representatives on a concrete electorate. However, systems like mixed-member proportional representation keep local single-member constituencies but balance their results with nationally elected or regionally-elected representatives to reach party proportionality.

Effects

Democracy

A 2020 study found that gerrymandering "impedes numerous party functions at both the congressional and state house levels. Candidates are less likely to contest districts when their party is disadvantaged by a districting plan. Candidates that do choose to run are more likely to have weak resumes. Donors are less willing to contribute money. And ordinary voters are less apt to support the targeted party. These results suggest that gerrymandering has long‐term effects on the health of the democratic process beyond simply costing or gaining parties seats in the legislature."

Gerrymandering and the environment

Gerrymandering has the ability to create numerous problems for the constituents impacted by the redistricting. A study done by the peer-reviewed Environmental Justice Journal analyzed how gerrymandering contributes to environmental racism. It suggested that partisan gerrymandering can often lead to adverse health complications for minority populations that live closer to United States superfund sites and additionally found that during redistricting periods, minority populations are "effectively gerrymandered out" of districts that tend to have fewer people of color in them and are farther away from toxic waste sites. This redistricting can be seen as a deliberate move to further marginalize minority populations and restrict them from gaining access to congressional representation and potentially fixing environmental hazards in their communities.

Gerrymandering and the 2018 midterm elections

Gerrymandering was considered by many Democrats to be one of the biggest obstacles they came across during the 2018 U.S. midterm election. In early 2018, both the United States Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the Republican parties in North Carolina and Pennsylvania had committed unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in the respective cases Cooper v. Harris and League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the case of Pennsylvania, the map was reconfigured into an evenly split congressional delegation, which gave Democrats in Pennsylvania more congressional representation and subsequently aided the Democrats in flipping the U.S. House of Representatives. In contrast, North Carolina did not reconfigure the districts prior to the midterm elections, which ultimately gave Republicans there an edge during the election. Republicans in North Carolina acquired 50% of the vote, which subsequently garnered them about 77% of the available seats in congress.

Other factors affecting redistricting

At a federal level, gerrymandering has been blamed for a decrease in competitive elections, movement toward extreme party positions, and gridlock in Congress. Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight argues that decreasing competition is partly due to gerrymandering, but even more so due to the population of the United States self-segregating by political ideology, which is seen in by-county voter registrations. Enten points to studies which find that factors other than gerrymandering account for over 75% of the increase in polarization in the past forty years, presumably due largely to changes among voters themselves. Because the Senate (which cannot be gerrymandered due to the fixed state borders) has been passing fewer bills but the House (which is subject to gerrymandering) has been passing more (comparing 1993–2002 to 2013–2016), Enten concludes gridlock is due to factors other than gerrymandering.