Texas is not normal. This is demonstrated again by its present redistricting efforts. Republicans plan to redraw election boundaries so that Republicans will grab five more seats in Congress. The House delegation from Texas would then be eighty percent instead of the two-thirds it is now. (Trump won fifty-six percent of the vote in 2024.) Democratic state legislators have two-stepped out of the state to prevent a quorum in the legislature so that it cannot operate. Threats of removal from office and fines have ensued. Even talk of losing parking places is circulating. National politicians have asked that the FBI be used to bring the Dems back to Austin although the legal ground for such federal action is not explained. Texas is not normal.
The “normal” process is that states only redistrict after each decennial census. This must happen if the number of representatives apportioned to a state has changed because of a population shift. The number of representatives in the House has been capped at 435 since 1929. If one state’s population has grown so that it is entitled to more representation than it had previously, then some other state will have to lose representation, a decision made by Congress after the census. Both of those states will need to draw up new districts.
Even if the number of representatives has remained the same, the state may still need to redistrict because of population shifts within a state. Thus, each state redistricts every ten years after the decennial census. That does not mean, however, that redistricting cannot happen more frequently. Neither the Constitution nor federal law prohibits mid-decade redistricting.
Not all states, however, can easily redistrict mid-decade. While Texas is different (duh) and does not prohibit it, some states do restrict themselves to redistricting only every ten years. Furthermore, some states have tried to remove partisanship from redistricting by ceding districting authority to a nonpartisan commission. Some states have placed the commission mechanism into their state constitutions so that partisan legislatures cannot wipe out such commissions. If these states want to respond to the Texas gerrymander with their own, they first have to amend their state constitutions, and that can take years. For example, in New York a constitutional amendment must be passed by two successive legislatures and then adopted in a statewide vote of the electorate before it goes into effect.
Of course, the Texas goal is not just to redraw district lines. The aim is that more districts will send more Republicans to Congress. Originally gerrymandering was about individuals. Legislative districts were manipulated to have a particular person elected or defeated, but that changed over time to ensure that the member of a particular party, no matter who the individual candidate was, would win the seat. In a successfully gerrymandered district, the election is not about voter turnout, issues, or even personalities. The outcome is set by the district lines that are drawn before the election. The ballots are a mere formality. As a political scientist has said, “In elections, the voters choose the legislators. With gerrymandering, the legislators choose the voters.”
One of the pillars of our government will crumble further as gerrymandering spreads. The House of Representatives, with single-member districts and elections every two years, was the branch of the federal government that was supposed to be most in touch with the people and most responsive to shifts in political winds and fortunes. For example, after the1894 midterms elections, Democratic representation went from 218 in the House to 93. This kind of shift was possible then, but it is unimaginable today because few House seats are truly contestable. The overwhelming majority of seats are “safe.” A political scientist reports that fifty years ago only 25% of House seats were in uncompetitive, gerrymandered districts compared to 60% in 2016. In 2024, reports say that fewer than fifty House spots are not safe. The House as a representation of the people sensitive to changes in the political winds has largely vanished. With gerrymandering, the results are foreordained before an election. If Texas gerrymanders and other states seek to gerrymander to balance Texas, democracy will shrink further.
I see reports of elections from various autocratic countries where the leader gets a ludicrous percentage of the votes, often just short of 100%. The election, of course, is a sham. Meaningless voting means that that country is not a democracy. A gerrymandered district in the United States where the election is meaningless is not part of a democracy either.
We can expect that if Texas gerrymanders mid-decade to deliver more seats for the Republicans, other states will gerrymander further to increase Democratic seats. States that tried to find ways to redistrict in a nonpartisan fashion will feel foolish and try to change their systems. More gerrymandering will ensue. Elections will matter less and less. The House and democracy will further decline.
Just another reason to be depressed.
