When the redistricting cycle began, there was hope that the wave of reforms adopted in the preceding decade would lead to better outcomes. In the end, the results were mixed.
In some places, reforms succeeded brilliantly in creating a fairer, more inclusive, and transparent process as well as fairer outcomes across a range of metrics. In other places, they failed, sometimes in strikingly dramatic fashion. In yet others, the results ended up being positive, but only because courts intervened to impose fair maps.
Although last decade’s reforms are very heterogenous — ranging from California-style independent commissions in Colorado and Michigan to a head-spinningly complex, one-of-a-kind process in Ohio — it is not hard to find differences between reforms that worked and those that didn’t. The biggest difference was perhaps the simplest of them all: If reforms removed politicians from the line-drawing process, they worked. By contrast, if politicians were left in the mix, reforms broke down.
Among states with new reforms, there is no brighter star than Michigan. Reforms overwhelmingly approved by Michiganders in a 2018 ballot initiative took map-drawing power out of the hands of the state legislature and gave it to a 13-person independent commission that included independents and third-party members as well as Democrats and Republicans. To promote independence, members of the commission are barred from being current or former elected officials or from having close ties to elected officials or to partisan politics. Members are also prohibited from immediately running for office under lines that they draw.
Michigan reforms also changed the process for passing a map. Before reforms, when the legislature drew districts, maps could be approved on a party-line basis, giving the majority party the ability to steamroll opponents and little incentive to compromise. By contrast, the new commission’s rules require that a map win support from at least some Democratic, Republican, and independent or third-party members in order to become law.
Reforms produced a sea change in Michigan. The state’s 2011 maps, drawn by Republicans, were some of the most aggressively gerrymandered in the country. By contrast, this decade’s commission-drawn map is among the country’s most politically balanced, and it easily survived legal challenges (though some minority groups say tweaks still might have to be made to some districts to ensure fair treatment of communities of color). Maps drawn by independent commissions in California, Arizona, and Colorado are similarly among the fairest in the country.
Ohio is a stark counterpoint. Like Michigan, Ohio tightened rules for drawing maps, including by adding a ban on partisan gerrymandering to its state constitution. But in contrast to Michigan, Ohio did not create an independent commission to draw maps and instead left map drawing in the hands of partisan elected officials, who can continue to pass maps on a party-line basis.
Rather than changing who draws the maps, Ohio reforms sought to constrain gerrymandering in two other ways. First, any maps passed without bipartisan support would have to be redrawn after two election cycles, which reformers hoped would create a strong incentive for partisan line drawers to compromise because they would be uncertain who would hold the map-drawing pen in four years’ time. Second, the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering would for the first time give voters a means to challenge gerrymanders. But neither check worked this cycle.
For Ohio Republicans, the theoretical possibility that Democrats might control the process in four years ended up not seeming like that much of a risk in a state that increasingly skewed Republican since the passage of reforms. Likewise, though the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the legislature’s congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, the reforms limited the remedies it could impose: While the court could order the legislature to redraw the map, it was barred from drawing its own map or appointing a special master to do so. When Ohio officials proceeded to thumb their noses at the court and simply passed another gerrymander, the court was forced by a tight election schedule to allow the gerrymandered map to be used in the 2022 elections. (A similar dynamic played out with respect to Ohio’s legislative maps, where courts have repeatedly struck down maps as gerrymanders only to have the state’s legislative redistricting commission pass yet another gerrymander.)
Three other states with new reforms — New York, Virginia, and Utah — also struggled with overcoming partisanship. In all three, reforms left ultimate responsibility for drawing a map in the hands of the legislature but created advisory commissions to recommend maps to lawmakers.
In Utah, the failure was the most straightforward: Utah’s Republican-controlled legislature simply ignored maps unanimously recommended by the advisory commission that would have created a highly competitive, slightly Democratic-leaning congressional district in Salt Lake City. Instead, it passed a map that surgically divided Salt Lake City among all four of the state’s congressional districts in order to create four solidly Republican districts. A lawsuit challenging the legislatively drawn map as a partisan gerrymander is pending in state court but will not be heard until after the 2022 midterms.
In New York and Virginia, partisanship had its effects earlier in the process when partisan elected officials on the commission or commissioners appointed by partisan elected officials caused the two commissions to deadlock.
In Virginia, deadlock meant that map-drawing responsibility fell to the state supreme court, which appointed two special masters to propose a congressional map. The map produced by special masters and adopted by the court is by all objective standards a very fair one. But the fact that it is easy to cause the commission to deadlock is a worrying sign for the future prospects of a commission where partisan lawmakers make up half the commission’s membership and can readily deadlock the process if they think it will be to their strategic advantage to do so.
Meanwhile, in New York, when the commission failed to muster the bipartisan votes needed to recommend a congressional map to the legislature, the Democratic-controlled legislature asserted that map-drawing responsibility had defaulted back to it and then promptly proceeded to draw one of the decade’s most aggressive congressional gerrymanders. The state’s highest court threw out the gerrymandered map in subsequent litigation by Republican voters and appointed a special master to draw a map. As in Virginia, that map is fair by most objective standards. But the process of redrawing the map was rushed, left minimal time for public input on complex map changes in a highly diverse state, and forced the state to move its congressional primary from June to late August. And, as in Virginia, the ease with which the commission was deadlocked will be an issue in future cycles.
In short, if there is one takeaway from seeing last decade’s reforms in action, it is that design matters. Reforms work — but only if they are robust enough to overcome partisan interests.
Wakati mzunguko wa kugawa wilaya ulipoanza, kulikuwa na matumaini kwamba wimbi la mageuzi yaliyopitishwa katika muongo uliopita yangesababisha matokeo bora. Mwishowe, matokeo yalikuwa tofauti-tofauti. Katika baadhi ya maeneo, mageuzi yalifanikiwa kwa njia nzuri katika kuunda mchakato wa haki, wa ujumuishaji na uwazi, na matokeo ya haki katika vipimo mbalimbali. Katika sehemu nyingine, walishindwa, nyakati nyingine kwa njia yenye kutokeza sana. Katika nyingine, matokeo yalimalizika kuwa mazuri, lakini tu kwa sababu mahakama ziliingilia kati ili kulazimisha ramani za haki. Ingawa mageuzi ya muongo uliopita ni tofauti sana - kuanzia tume huru za mtindo wa California huko Colorado na Michigan hadi mchakato tata wa kugeuka kichwa, wa aina moja huko Ohio - sio vigumu kupata tofauti kati ya mageuzi ambayo yalifanya kazi na yale ambayo hayakufanya. Tofauti kubwa ilikuwa labda rahisi zaidi kati yao wote: Ikiwa mageuzi yaliwaondoa wanasiasa kutoka kwa mchakato wa kuchora mstari, walifanya kazi. Kinyume chake, ikiwa wanasiasa waliachwa katika mchanganyiko huo, marekebisho yalianguka. Miongoni mwa majimbo yenye mageuzi mapya, hakuna nyota yenye kung'aa kuliko Michigan. Mabadiliko yaliyopitishwa na Michiganders katika mpango wa kura ya 2018 yalichukua nguvu ya kuchora ramani kutoka kwa mikono ya bunge la jimbo na kuipa kwa tume huru ya watu 13 ambayo ilijumuisha waamuzi wa kujitegemea na wanachama wa chama cha tatu pamoja na wanademokrasia na Republican. Ili kuendeleza uhuru, wanachama wa tume hiyo wanakatazwa kuwa maafisa waliochaguliwa wa sasa au wa zamani au kuwa na uhusiano wa karibu na maafisa waliochaguliwa au siasa za chama. Wanachama pia wanakatazwa mara moja kuwania ofisi chini ya mistari wanayoichora. Marekebisho ya Michigan pia yalibadilisha mchakato wa kupitisha ramani. Kabla ya marekebisho, wakati bunge lilipochora wilaya, ramani zingeweza kupitishwa kwa msingi wa mstari wa chama, ikitoa chama cha wengi uwezo wa kuwapiga wapinzani na motisha kidogo ya kufanya makubaliano. Kwa kulinganisha, sheria mpya za tume zinahitaji ramani kupata msaada kutoka kwa angalau baadhi ya wanachama wa Kidemokrasia, Republican, na huru au wa chama cha tatu ili kuwa sheria. Marekebisho hayo yalitokeza badiliko kubwa katika Michigan. Ramani ya 2011 ya jimbo hilo, iliyochorwa na Republican, ilikuwa mojawapo ya ramani zilizopigwa marufuku zaidi nchini. Kwa kulinganisha, ramani iliyochorwa na tume ya miaka kumi hii ni kati ya nchi yenye usawa wa kisiasa, na imeokoka changamoto za kisheria kwa urahisi (ingawa baadhi ya vikundi vya wachache wanasema bado inaweza kuwa na tweaks kufanywa kwa wilaya fulani ili kuhakikisha matibabu ya haki ya jamii za rangi). Ramani zilizochorwa na halmashauri huru katika California, Arizona, na Colorado pia ni miongoni mwa ramani zilizo sawa zaidi nchini. Ohio ni kinyume kabisa. Kama Michigan, Ohio ilifanya sheria za kuchora ramani kuwa kali zaidi, ikiwa ni pamoja na kuongeza marufuku ya kupinga upinzani wa chama katika katiba yake ya jimbo. Lakini tofauti na Michigan, Ohio haikuunda tume huru ya kuchora ramani na badala yake iliacha kuchora ramani mikononi mwa maafisa waliochaguliwa wa chama, ambao wanaweza kuendelea kupitisha ramani kwa msingi wa mstari wa chama. Badala ya kubadilisha nani anayechora ramani, marekebisho ya Ohio yalitafuta kuzuia utumiaji wa ramani kwa njia nyingine mbili. "Kwanza, ramani yoyote iliyopitishwa bila msaada wa vyama vyote viwili ingekuwa na kuchorwa upya baada ya mzunguko wa uchaguzi, ambayo watengenezaji wa marekebisho walitumaini itaunda kichocheo kikubwa kwa wachoraji wa mstari wa chama kufanya makubaliano kwa sababu hawatakuwa na uhakika ni nani angeshikilia kalamu ya kuchora ramani katika miaka minne. """ Pili, katiba ya jimbo la marufuku juu ya gerrymandering ya chama kwa mara ya kwanza kutoa wapiga kura njia ya changamoto gerrymanders. Lakini hakuna ukaguzi uliofanya kazi katika mzunguko huu. Kwa Wa-Republican wa Ohio, uwezekano wa nadharia kwamba wanademokrasia wanaweza kudhibiti mchakato katika miaka minne haukuonekana kama hatari kubwa katika jimbo ambalo limezidi kupotoka kwa Republican tangu kupitishwa kwa mageuzi. "Kwa hivyo, ingawa Mahakama Kuu ya Ohio ilishambulia ramani ya bunge la bunge kama ""gerrymander ya upendeleo isiyo ya kikatiba,"" marekebisho yalipunguza suluhisho ambalo lingeweza kulazimisha: Wakati mahakama inaweza kuamuru bunge kurekebisha ramani, ilizuiliwa kuchora ramani yake mwenyewe au kuteua bwana maalum kufanya hivyo." Wakati maafisa wa Ohio walipoendelea kuibua pua zao mahakamani na kupitisha tu gerrymander nyingine, mahakama ililazimika kwa ratiba nyembamba ya uchaguzi kuruhusu ramani ya gerrymander kutumika katika uchaguzi wa 2022. (Mtazamo kama huo ulifanyika kuhusiana na ramani za kisheria za Ohio, ambapo mahakama zimepiga mara kwa mara ramani kama gerrymanders tu kuwa na tume ya marekebisho ya wilaya ya sheria ya jimbo kupitisha gerrymander nyingine. ) Majimbo mengine matatu yenye mageuzi mapya - New York, Virginia, na Utah - pia yalijitahidi kushinda upendeleo. Katika nchi zote tatu, marekebisho yaliacha jukumu la mwisho la kuchora ramani mikononi mwa bunge lakini yaliunda tume za ushauri kupendekeza ramani kwa wabunge. Utah, ambayo ilikuwa chini ya udhibiti wa Republican, ilipuuza ramani zilizopendekezwa kwa umoja na tume ya ushauri ambayo ingekuwa imeunda mkoa wa bunge wenye ushindani mkubwa, wenye mwelekeo wa Kidemokrasia kidogo huko Salt Lake City. Badala yake, ilipitisha ramani ambayo iligawanya Salt Lake City kati ya wilaya zote nne za bunge la jimbo ili kuunda wilaya nne za Republican. Kesi ya kukataa ramani ya serikali ya Marekani ya 2022 imesikilizwa katika mahakama ya jimbo hilo, lakini haitasikilizwa hadi baada ya uchaguzi wa katikati ya mwaka. Katika New York na Virginia, upendeleo ulikuwa na athari zake mapema katika mchakato wakati maafisa waliochaguliwa wa chama kwenye tume au kamishna walioteuliwa na maafisa waliochaguliwa wa chama walisababisha tume mbili kufungwa. Katika jimbo la Virginia, uamuzi huo ulifanya mahakama ya juu ya jimbo hilo iite mahakama mbili za pekee ili itengeneze ramani ya jimbo hilo. Ramani iliyotengenezwa na mabwana maalum na kupitishwa na mahakama ni kwa viwango vyote vya lengo moja ya haki sana. Lakini ukweli kwamba ni rahisi kusababisha tume hiyo kufungwa ni ishara ya wasiwasi kwa matarajio ya baadaye ya tume ambapo wabunge wa chama wanaunda nusu ya wanachama wa tume na wanaweza kwa urahisi kufunga mchakato ikiwa wanafikiri itakuwa kwa faida yao ya kimkakati kufanya hivyo. Wakati huo huo, katika New York, wakati tume ilishindwa kukusanya kura za vyama viwili zinazohitajika kupendekeza ramani ya bunge kwa bunge, bunge linaloongozwa na Democrat lilisisitiza kuwa jukumu la kuchora ramani lilikuwa limerudi kwake na kisha haraka iliendelea kuchora moja ya makundi ya bunge yenye fujo zaidi ya muongo huu. Mahakama ya juu ya jimbo hilo ilitupa ramani hiyo iliyobadilishwa katika kesi iliyofuata na wapiga kura wa Republican na kuteua mwalimu maalum kuchora ramani. Kama ilivyo katika Virginia, ramani hiyo ni ya haki kwa viwango vingi vya kimakusudi. Lakini mchakato wa kuchora upya ramani uliharakishwa, ukiacha muda mdogo kwa maoni ya umma juu ya mabadiliko magumu ya ramani katika jimbo lenye utofauti mkubwa, na kulazimisha jimbo kuhamisha msingi wake wa bunge kutoka Juni hadi mwishoni mwa Agosti. Na, kama ilivyo katika Virginia, urahisi ambao tume ilikuwa imefungwa utakuwa suala katika mizunguko ya baadaye. Kwa kifupi, ikiwa kuna kitu kimoja cha kujifunza kutoka kwa kuona mageuzi ya muongo uliopita katika vitendo, ni kwamba muundo ni muhimu. Marekebisho hufanya kazi <unk> lakini tu kama wao ni imara kutosha kushinda maslahi ya chama.