Democracy Academy: The FIRST Big Battle Over Districting
How Baker v. Carr Upended the Nation, and Led to Today's Battle over Partisan Gerrymandering
Are you watching the Issue 1 battle in Ohio? Do you see how hard the politicians are working to cling to corrupted power, literally lying on the ballot itself?
Whatever state you’re in, does today’s gerrymandering infuriate you?
Politicians rigging districts so that they stay in power and can never be held accountable, and warping democratic representation overall in state after state—where laws and policies of states reflect the opposite of the views of those states’ citizens?
Well, what if instead of crazy-shaped and rigged districts, politicians sat in districts of totally different population sizes. Say, a large city of 800,000 people comprises a Congressional or statehouse district; and somewhere else in the same state, a number of small towns totalling 150,000 people comprise their own Congressional district. Then imagine that there are many other districts with equally small populations. Think of all the consequences such a system would lead to. (Actually, the problems and consequences would be quite similar to today’s gerrymandering—just accomplished through different means).
Not that long ago, that scenario was actually the status quo of American politics. The legal term for the issue was malapportionment. And for years, as with gerrymandering today, the Supreme Court said there was nothing to be done about it…until it changed its mind, and in doing so, changed the nation.
It all came to a head in a historic case that grew into an epic battle—among some of our nation’s most famous justices, and later, among politicians. And that case, Baker v. Carr, ultimately sparked a revolution that reshaped American politics.
In fact, Earl Warren considered Baker the most important decision of his tenure as Chief Justice. (Yes, that means he considered it more important than even Brown v. Board of Education).
You’ll soon see why….and why ending gerrymandering NOW is also equally vital to our democracy.
The Precursor to Today’s Gerrymandering: Malapportionment
If gerrymandering is the act of intentionally drawing districts that predetermine election outcomes, thwart representation and accountability, and alter the political balance of power, think of malapportionment as the opposite means to achieve the same end.
Opposite in that the districts involved were not redrawn…for decades on end. They weren’t changed at all.
After the turn of the century, in state after state, even as populations exploded and shifted—and diverse, urban areas grew in particular—district maps from a bygone era simply went unaltered. Congressional and state legislative districts remained locked into place, one decade after the next. And those seated comfortably in power in those districts simply refused to update them despite dramatic changes in population beneath their feet. (Just as politicians today, enjoying their gerrymandered districts, refuse to draw fair districts).
This left some districts, largely in urban areas, far larger in population but still represented by a single officeholder; and other districts, in rural parts of states, lightly populated, yet they too continued to be represented by a single officeholder. Over time, those dramatically different-sized districts presented a huge problem to representative democracy.
To understand the extent of the problem, let’s get specific. Let’s look at Illinois.
Here is what the Illinois map looked like in 1901….and still in 1946.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Pepperspectives to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.