The only way Democrats can end gerrymandering? By gerrymandering themselves.

The only way Democrats can end gerrymandering? By gerrymandering themselves.

Opinion by 

Paul Waldman

Columnist

Yesterday at 4:05 p.m. EDT

“When they go low, we go high,” Michelle Obama famously said at the 2016 Democratic convention. In the view of many Democrats, that’s just the problem: Republicans are always willing to go low, but Democrats are hesitant, fearful, and too enamored of their own moral superiority to respond in kind.

The redistricting now taking place across the country could show what this posture produces in practice. So it may be time for those Democrats to say that despite their opposition to partisan gerrymandering — opposition both practical and principled — they ought to use the current round of redistricting to squeeze every last congressional seat they can out of places where they have control.

Would it be hypocritical? Sure. But the alternative is worse. Which leads to this ironic conclusion: If they want to have any hope of destroying the toxic force of gerrymandering in the future, Democrats have to engage in it in the present.

Story continues below advertisement

With Democrats controlling the House by just a few seats, it may be possible for Republicans to take back control in 2022 by means of gerrymandering alone, even if they don’t win the typical opposition party victory that characterizes most midterm elections. That’s because they control the process in many more states than Democrats do, including Texas, North Carolina, and Florida, which alone could be decisive.

But Democrats have a few opportunities. In New York the parties are battling over competing maps after the redistricting commission couldn’t agree on one; Democrats could wind up with an extra seat or two there. In Illinois, the legislature could redraw a couple of Republican seats to make them easier for Democrats to win. Oregon is gaining a seat, which could allow Democrats to go from a 4-to-1 to a 5-to-1 advantage.

Republicans will doubtless use every ounce of power they have to gerrymander themselves into a firmer hold on power, especially where that power is threatened. Texas is a good example: Though the state’s enormous growth has been driven by Latinos (who lean Democratic) and the large metropolitan areas dominated by Democrats, the Republicans who control the legislature will make sure the GOP reaps all the gains.

Story continues below advertisement

And though congressional district lines get the most attention, gerrymandering is often even more brutal when it comes to state legislative lines. The prototypical example is Wisconsin: Thanks to the GOP legislature’s gerrymandering, in 2018 Democrats won the popular vote for state assembly by 53 percent to 45 percent, but Republicans still held 63 of the 99 seats.

Results like that drive Democrats to oppose partisan gerrymandering — but they also have a principled objection, since they have become the party of small-d democratic representation. They wrote that belief into the For the People Act, which would eliminate gerrymandering by requiring states to create nonpartisan commissions to draw lines for the House of Representatives.

So how can they simultaneously say gerrymandering is wrong but still pursue it where they can? It’s not hard. In fact, you can argue that gerrymandering now is the only way they can have any chance to prevent gerrymandering in the future.

Story continues below advertisement

That’s because context matters. When Republicans are not only gerrymandering but taking other steps to make democratic accountability impossible — such as their manifold efforts at voter suppression — Democrats can’t protect democracy unless and until they have power.

Of course, they could do it now, if the Senate holdouts defending the filibuster changed course and allowed reforms barring gerrymandering to pass. But there are no signs that will happen.

And if Republicans take the House, safeguarding democracy will be impossible. Which means that at least for now, successful Democratic gerrymandering to offset inevitable Republican gerrymandering is absolutely necessary to enable the end of partisan gerrymandering.

Story continues below advertisement

The simultaneously bad and good news is that the vast majority of voters neither understand nor particularly care about the details of redistricting. No party is going to get punished at the polls because it was too aggressive in redrawing district lines.

That means there’s no accountability for attacks on democracy; and to repeat, the whole point of gerrymandering is to avoid democratic accountability. But it could also be a good thing, because it means Democrats can pursue this strategy without having to worry about being called hypocrites, even if it’s true.

So they should take that criticism and do whatever they have to do. If they don’t, the prospects for any reform to shore up our already weak and unresponsive system will evaporate.