Gerrymandering: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count

It Sure is Easier than Campaigning — How Candidates Lock Up the Race Before Election Day

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In a democracy, voters are supposed to choose their rulers. But in America it seems to be the other way around. Webster’s on gerrymandering: “[T]he division of a territorial unit into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength in of the opposition in as few districts as possible.”

Georgia 13

Legislatures have created districts as winding as the Mississippi River, as roundabout as a a u-turn, and as porous as a coral reef—rendering voting little more than a good-faith ritual. Indeed, in 2004 fully 98 percent of incumbents running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives held onto their seats—even accounting for retirements and deaths.

Florida 22 District

Pronounced with a hard “G” the name harkens back to 1812, inspired by Massachusetts’ Governor Elbridge Gerry. Though hardly a new practice, computer software of the past two decades has meant incumbents can use redistricting to benefit like never before.

It turns out that redistricting is easier and cheaper than actually campaigning. In 2001, U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Orange County) admitted that she and her colleagues paid $20,000 to map-maker Michael Berman to preserve their seats. “Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat,” Sanchez said. “I spend $2 million (campaigning) every election.”

Sanchez is one of a few incumbents who have gerrymandered their siblings a seat (her sister Linda, in 2002), according to Doug Johnson of the Rose Institute, an expert on the topic.

Three decades ago, another U.S. Representative, democrat Phillip Burton crafted a San Francisco Bay Area district that his brother, John Burton, won in 1974. John later became a powerful force in California state politics, and as state senate leader in 2001, gerrymandered a fellow Democrat out of a seat. Burton’s goal was to prevent State assembly leader Fred Keeley of Santa Cruz from winning the primary for the state Senate and took the city of Santa Cruz, where Keeley had garnered a following, right out of the district. But Burton’s preferred candidate ended up dropped out early, and Keeley didn’t even attempt to campaign in a foreign district, thus a Republican took the seat.

Texas Redistricting

Democrats have controlled redistricting in most states in recent decades, but Republicans have certainly taken charge of late. Legislatures have lost their inhibitions and now follow just the slimmest of rules: for one, chunks of a district have to be connected by a minimum of one census block—the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau tabulates percent data—or a bridge, or a highway. In 2003, the Republicans of Texas, led by Tom DeLay, famously broke the other basic rule: that redistricting should take place only every ten years. Just two years after the last redraw DeLay cleaved the city of Austin into two separate districts, one of which snakes about 300 miles to the border of Mexico. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the scheme, meaning, for now, anything seems to go.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate