I've been thinking about how Dems could go about fixing how congressional districts are drawn if we have a trifecta after 2028. Banning (or at least greatly reducing the impact of) gerrymandering is not so easy as to simply pass a bill that says "Gerrymandering is hereby prohibited". Nobody is going to agree on what exactly gerrymandering is, and so every state's map would ultimately end up in court. And if there's one thing that should be obvious to everyone now, THE COURTS ARE OUR ENEMIES, NOT OUR FRIENDS. The best way to do this is to write a law that is so incredibly specific that it is literally impossible to misinterpret. This way, the maps won't go to the courts in the first place because it will be obvious whether they are legal or not.
Here's the idea behind what the bill should say:
1) The VRA is re-established, and it should be specifically mentioned that it requires and protects coalition districts too.
2) Counties larger than the ideal district population for its state (IDPS) cannot have more than one district split between it and other counties. This basically means that if a county has 2 million people, it must have two districts entirely within it, and then the remainder of the county must be entirely contained in another district (that will also include areas outside the county, to ensure population equality, of course).
3) Counties whose population is larger than 2/3 (this number is flexible, but IMO 2/3 is the best option) of the IDPS cannot be split. (This provision would prevent places like Nashville from being cracked.)
4) After a district has been drawn in a county larger than a district, the district containing the remainder of the county must be drawn to include the most densely populated county (MDPC) (calculated using land area only) bordering the first county (that has less than 2/3 the population of a district). (The purpose of this provision is to try to keep metropolitan areas together by putting suburban counties with their neighboring urban counties instead of with rural counties.)
4a) Specific conditions for when that MDPC can be split (which goes a bit in the weeds)
5) A county that "borders" another at a single point does *not* count as a bordering county for purposes of these rules
6) Above requirements can be waived if all of a county's bordering counties, in the same state, have at least 2/3 of the ideal district population. (I have a list of counties for which this would apply - interestingly, they are all in blue or purple states, none in red states.)
7) Above requirements can be overriden if necessary to draw VRA districts. (A good example of this is Jefferson County, Alabama - rule #3 above would force it to be kept whole, but creating the necessary VRA districts in Alabama requires it to be split.)
The purpose of these rules is to outlaw the cracking techniques that Republicans have been using for their latest gerrymanders.
Does anyone have any more suggestions for specific rules on how districts should be required to be drawn?
I'd like some analysis of OH-7, held by Max Miller (R). In 2024, Matt Diemer was the Democrat running in the race and got 36%, but Dennis Kucinich ran as an Independent and took nearly 13% of the vote. A lot of analysis ranks this district as a lot redder than I think it actually is.
I've been thinking about how Dems could go about fixing how congressional districts are drawn if we have a trifecta after 2028. Banning (or at least greatly reducing the impact of) gerrymandering is not so easy as to simply pass a bill that says "Gerrymandering is hereby prohibited". Nobody is going to agree on what exactly gerrymandering is, and so every state's map would ultimately end up in court. And if there's one thing that should be obvious to everyone now, THE COURTS ARE OUR ENEMIES, NOT OUR FRIENDS. The best way to do this is to write a law that is so incredibly specific that it is literally impossible to misinterpret. This way, the maps won't go to the courts in the first place because it will be obvious whether they are legal or not.
Here's the idea behind what the bill should say:
1) The VRA is re-established, and it should be specifically mentioned that it requires and protects coalition districts too.
2) Counties larger than the ideal district population for its state (IDPS) cannot have more than one district split between it and other counties. This basically means that if a county has 2 million people, it must have two districts entirely within it, and then the remainder of the county must be entirely contained in another district (that will also include areas outside the county, to ensure population equality, of course).
3) Counties whose population is larger than 2/3 (this number is flexible, but IMO 2/3 is the best option) of the IDPS cannot be split. (This provision would prevent places like Nashville from being cracked.)
4) After a district has been drawn in a county larger than a district, the district containing the remainder of the county must be drawn to include the most densely populated county (MDPC) (calculated using land area only) bordering the first county (that has less than 2/3 the population of a district). (The purpose of this provision is to try to keep metropolitan areas together by putting suburban counties with their neighboring urban counties instead of with rural counties.)
4a) Specific conditions for when that MDPC can be split (which goes a bit in the weeds)
5) A county that "borders" another at a single point does *not* count as a bordering county for purposes of these rules
6) Above requirements can be waived if all of a county's bordering counties, in the same state, have at least 2/3 of the ideal district population. (I have a list of counties for which this would apply - interestingly, they are all in blue or purple states, none in red states.)
7) Above requirements can be overriden if necessary to draw VRA districts. (A good example of this is Jefferson County, Alabama - rule #3 above would force it to be kept whole, but creating the necessary VRA districts in Alabama requires it to be split.)
The purpose of these rules is to outlaw the cracking techniques that Republicans have been using for their latest gerrymanders.
Does anyone have any more suggestions for specific rules on how districts should be required to be drawn?
I'd like some analysis of OH-7, held by Max Miller (R). In 2024, Matt Diemer was the Democrat running in the race and got 36%, but Dennis Kucinich ran as an Independent and took nearly 13% of the vote. A lot of analysis ranks this district as a lot redder than I think it actually is.