New Redistricting Report Makes the Case for the Fair Representation Act
Lee Drutman (Senior Fellow at New America) recently released a new report, “What We Know About Redistricting and Redistricting Reform.” The report provides a comprehensive look at gerrymandering in the U.S., and confirms the dire need for Congress to pass the Fair Representation Act.
Similar to FairVote’s 2022 Monopoly Politics Report, Drutman observes a stark decline in competitive congressional districts and a decrease in “split ticket” voting (when a congressional district votes for one party for Congress and a different party for President). However, he says that intentionally skewed map-drawing (otherwise known as gerrymandering) is not fully to blame. Rather, geographical sorting and polarization play a larger role.
As Democrats and Republicans increasingly live in like-minded communities, it is naturally harder to come by compact areas that are roughly equally red and blue. Given this dynamic, it is hard for mapmakers (whether they be partisan state legislatures, independent commissions, or courts) to draw fair, competitive maps regardless of their intentions, as long as single-member congressional districts are the norm. Drutman’s review of prior studies reveals that independent commissions only have a marginal impact.
However, single member districts aren’t the only way a legislative body can be elected. Drutman points to proportional representation as an alternative. The Fair Representation Act (or FRA), which would institute a candidate-based form of proportional representation, would replace smaller single-member districts with larger multi-member districts. FairVote recently released sample maps to show what congressional districts could look like under the FRA.
In fact, the FRA would solve several of the gerrymandering-related issues that Drutman brings up. For example:
- Minority representation: Drutman notes that in order for racial minority populations to be represented, they have to be “packed” into the same district to create minority-majority districts. Further, the “packing strategy” can be difficult because it’s not always the case that minority groups live in dense clusters. Additionally, courts in the U.S. seem to be increasingly averse to race-conscious decision-making, possibly threatening the future of minority-majority districts. With the FRA, minority communities can be spread out across several areas in a larger district and still have influence. Further, the proportional ranked choice voting component of the FRA means that a minority group can still have deciding power when they comprise much less than 50% of a district. Rather, the threshold to elect is 25% + 1 vote in a three-member district, and 17% +1 vote in a five-member district.
- Inefficient or “wasted” votes: Drutman writes that with single-member districts, any votes cast in excess of 50% are essentially “wasted” and “inefficient.” This presents a problem for both voters and parties. For parties, it is advantageous to have districts where they are set up to have narrow wins, so “excess” votes can be used efficiently in a different district. However, drawing districts in this way can be risky since maps last 10 years and populations shift over time. When parties choose to draw safer districts to avoid this risk, many voters feel like their ballots don’t matter, because the outcome is already decidedly Republican or Democratic. 80% of congressional districts are considered “safe seats” for one party. However with proportional ranked choice voting under the FRA, fractions of votes cast in excess of the “threshold to elect” can count towards voters’ next choice. This way, every vote is used in a way that is maximally impactful on the race, and no ballots are “wasted” on candidates that have already surpassed the threshold.
- Population shifts over time: Drutman mentions that because demographics within/across districts may change within a decade, even a “fairly drawn” or “competitive” map may not be so for the course of ten years. This is less of a problem with the larger districts that the FRA would establish; a voter could move to a nearby town or potentially a different part of the state and still vote in the same district. Even if the population of a district shifts dramatically over the course of a decade, voters will be represented roughly in proportion to the voters’ preferences, with no group being locked out of representation because of population shifts.
Drutman also points out that a lot of the things on our map wishlist (minority representation, competitive districts, fair partisan representation, etc.) are in conflict with one another. The FRA also does an excellent job at mitigating these conflicts. For example:
- Fair partisan balance vs. competitive elections: A “fair” partisan balance means that parties are represented in proportion to their share of votes. Drutman notes that ensuring this would mean giving both parties more safe districts. However, the FRA allows for “safe” seats to exist within “competitive” elections. This is because several Democrats and Republicans would be competing in each general election. For example, if one seat in a district is safely Democratic, the several Democratic candidates must compete for it. Further, any FRA districts that have a “toss-up” seat add an extra level of competitiveness because Republican and Democratic candidates must compete against each other for that seat. All in all, the FRA would maintain a fair balance of red versus blue seats while facilitating both intra- and inter-party competition.
- Keeping communities together / strong representational ties vs. competitive elections: Ideally, districts represent communities that have a strong representational tie to their representative. What one study calls “the paradox of redistricting,” drawing lines to create competitive districts can sever communities of interest. For example, Drutman imagines a district where a Republican outer superb is lumped with a Democratic inner suburb or college town, which he says “is more like two separate districts fused together.” The district will be competitive, but “only half the district can be represented at any given time.” The FRA’s larger districts mean less line drawing, and therefore less opportunity to split up communities. Also, if the district is represented by multiple members, both “halves” can compete and be represented. Because the FRA instructs states to draw districts with mostly five and three-member districts, there still exists a “winner’s bonus” and “loser’s penalty,” as Drutman calls it. Let’s say the imaginary district is represented by three members and the Republicans have a slight majority. The Republicans would win two seats, and the Democrats one.
Drutman’s report reveals that redistricting is difficult to navigate, even if well-intended. The FRA would establish independent redistricting commissions, which would help ensure our map makers are well-intentioned. However, with the FRA’s multimember districts, redistricting would also not be difficult to navigate. Districts can be drawn in a multitude of ways that satisfy partisan fairness, minority representation, and competitiveness among other criteria – we need not sacrifice one thing for another.
We applaud Drutman’s work in outlining the many intricacies of redistricting in a digestible way, and creating a piece that illustrates the need for the Fair Representation Act.
