Gerrymandering as Non-White Containment Tool
A closer look at a recent map showing the spread of partisan redistricting strategies underscores how the "diversity" of a state factors into it
Publisher’s Riff
Words mean everything. In politics, they really are the difference between winning and losing a campaign. In public policy, they really shape the contours of a debate, define the issues and determine the outcomes of legislation. This is the reason why many words in the political space are created in such a way as to engender deliberate obfuscation. Some words are meant to distance themselves from the body politic, the entymology and final phrasing crafted in a manner that either confuses the average person or forces them to tune out. Political operatives and policy makers routinely hide all sorts of shadiness behind a word. One such achievement of rhetorical jobbery, in fact, is the word “gerrymandering.”
“Gerry what?” is a response you’ll often get from those who either didn’t pay attention in social studies, grew up in a school system that was deliberately designed to not teach them about it, or are among large swaths of the American population that partisans - especially Republicans - hope won’t watch what’s really going on. While polls in recent years have shown majorities of “voters” opposing gerrymandering, it’s interesting how we can’t find any real polling that shows whether Americans (voting or not) know exactly what that is. Most are not aware that it’s a tool used to manipulate state and Congressional district maps in such a way that favors one party over another - and, often, severely diluting non-White or “BIPOC” political power in the process. If, as the most recent 2020 Annenbery Center’s civic knowledge survey finds, just 51 percent of Americans know all three branches of government (and, yes, that’s very alarming even if it’s a slim majority) and nearly a quarter of Americans can’t name any branches at all, then how would we expect a majority of Americans to know what gerrymandering is? A 2017 YouGov poll is a bit more revealing on this question, as it finds a significant share of Americans saying “not sure” …
The “not sure” numbers are highest among Independents (non-partisans), younger voters (it seems the older you are, the more you understand it), and Black and Latino voters. Yet, when we look at the states where sinister gerrymandering is most intense, we find it is in places that are among the Blackest and Brownest in the nation.
Gerrymandering is Where the “Diversity” Is
To us, this is what’s most noticeable when sizing up the recent Axios/RepresentUs collaborative Gerrymandering Threat Index. Still, we didn’t hear much about that in reporting around the survey’s release. Here’s the map …
Out of the 24 states classified as “extreme” cases of gerrymandering, 58 percent (or 14) are places where Black residents constitute 10 percent or more of the population. Seven (7) of these states are among the 10 states with the highest percentages of Black residents. The Black population share map of the United States almost begins matching the gerrymandering risk map …
States where Latinos make-up 6 percent or more of the overall population show signs of Brown demographic growth. There are, again, 14 states (or 58 percent), where there “extreme” risk of gerrymandering and the size of the Latino population correlate.
Five of the states where gerrymandering risk is considered “high” - like Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Vermont - house significant concentrations of Latino populations. Five of the states on the “extreme” and “high” gerrymandering risk map are also among the 10 states with the highest percentages of Latino residents.
As we saw in 2020 as Biden was able to flip Arizona blue through the power of Indigenous voters, it’s not wise to ignore their electoral power. Of course, Republicans don’t - but, for the wrong reasons. States where the Indigenous or Native American population make up 5 percent or more of the overall population are also places most likely to experience “extreme” gerrymandering: 3 of the “extreme” risk states (North Dakota, South Dakota and New Mexico) are 7 percent or more Indigenous and 2 states are “high” risk (Alaska Oklahoma) where Native American residents are between 14 - 20 percent of the overall population …
For the most part, gerrymandering appears as a feature designed to contain the potential electoral power of non-White populations. This is most prevalent in states where Republicans - who are rather unfriendly to Black, Brown and Indigenous political interests at the moment - are in power at the state level. There are several exceptions in places like Maryland (split government, but Democratic legislature), Connecticut (total Democrat), New Mexico (total Democrat), Illinois (total Democrat), Nevada (total Democrat) and Oregon (total Democrat). They should be closely examined and questioned, too.