Gerrymander Proliferation and Constitutional Détente

Most of my readers will recall Elkanah Tisdale’s iconic political cartoon evoking "Gerrymander" nomenclature for Massachusetts’ redistricted manipulations following the 1810 census. A July 18, 2024 post by Neely Tucker [https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2024/07/gerrymandering-the-origin-story/] featured former chief of the Rare Book & Special Collections Division guest, Mark Dimunation. He offered the following on gerrymandering which has become part of our lexicon these past two centuries:

“The term, originally written as “Gerry-mander,” first was used on March 26, 1812, in the Boston Gazette — a reaction to the redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Gov. Elbridge Gerry.

Though the redistricting was done at the behest of his Democratic-Republican Party, it was Gerry who signed the bill in 1812. As a result, he received the dubious honor of attribution, along with its negative connotations.

Gerry, in fact, found the proposal “highly disagreeable.” He lost the next election, but the redistricting was a success: His party retained control of the legislature.

One of the remapped, contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a mythological salamander. The newly drawn state senate district in Essex County was lampooned in cartoons as a strange winged dragon, clutching at the region.

The person who coined the term gerrymander never has been identified. The artist who drew the political cartoon, however, was Elkanah Tisdale, a Boston-based artist and engraver who had the skills to cut the blocks for the original cartoon.

Gerry was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a two-term member of the House of Representatives, governor of Massachusetts and U.S. vice president under James Madison. His name, however, was forever negatively linked to this form of political powerbroking [sic] by the cartoon shown above, which often appeared with the term gerrymander.

The Library’s Rare Book and Special Collections Division holds the original print of the image, and the Geography and Map Division holds Tisdale’s original woodblocks — preserving the origins of a political practice that continues over two centuries later.”

To understand our current hyper-gerrymandering proliferation w.r.t. US House Districts, one must appreciate the ingenious design woven into the letter and Spirit of Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution: The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative. In 1789 some States had not yet amassed 30,000 persons - i.e., each State was allotted one House member independent of population -- at 12,000; one Representative; at 25,000; one Representative… at 30,000; one Rep. At 59,999 still one Rep. At 60,000 persons; two Representatives. A State’s population at 89,999; still only two Reps. At 90,000; three Reps, ad infinitum for every additional 30,000 persons... y’all get the idea. Failure to follow Article 1, Section 2 now has some US House members representing over 800,000! By Constitutional design there can be no congressional district exceeding 59,999; as population increases the number within each district will approach 30,000 persons. The sage framers forecasted even the small land mass of Rhode Island would accrue 60,000 persons in the not too distant future.

As an aside, this also distorts the Electoral College (Article 2, Section 1) driving Bush v. Gore type unconstitutional outcomes; expect to see this more often as population further increases without constitutional adjustment. We still observe 3 electoral vote States because the number of Senators [2] exceeds the one House member which has not been allowed to increase as designed – i.e., a House which is NOT very representative and increasingly more oligarchic. Our first census counted 3.9 million people in 1790; some States had not yet amassed 30,000 persons, thus at Least one Representative for each State which Framers understood would quickly increase into many Representatives for each State, making the 2 Senator impact upon Electoral College results moot. Every 3 electoral vote State (along with DC’s 3 electoral votes) is a Constitutional abomination. Alabama’s 2020 Census was just over 5 million [5,024,279] exceeding the entire population of the original 13 States in 1790. Alabama’s population now proffers 167 constitutionally correct Reps under the one for every 30,000 rule totaling 5,010,000; the 14,279 population remainder (which doesn’t constitute another 30,000 population district) must be apportioned among the 167 districts to allocate just under 86 more persons to each 30,000 district - i.e., 30,086 persons per district. 167 x 30,086 is 5,024,362.

Alabama has one Rep for every 717,754 persons with the politically correct 7 instead of the constitutionally correct 167; about 25 times the concentration of power to each House member of Congress promoting gerrymander proliferation. Remember one can NOT find the 435 number [anti-competitive limit set in 1929] capping the US House anywhere in our Constitution. By design, increased populations would shepherd districts closer the 30,000 population provision in the Constitution, chilling ability, incentive and effectiveness to manipulate redistricting via gerrymandering. Little wonder why so few US House races are competitive with duopoly manipulated districts approaching one million persons. Shame on anyone who thinks the framers would find this proliferation permissible and were too short-sighted to design a system (if adhered to) which would thwart such manipulation and concentration of power.

The 1810 [third] census, which led to vulgar gerrymandering in Massachusetts, recorded 7,239,881 people living in the United States. Approximately 1.2 million were slaves the northern/less agricultural States did not want fully counted to distort the proxy between agricultural and industrial activity. State(s) not adjusting their number of councilpersons, county commissioners, representatives, senators, etc. experiencing the fastest, most distorted growth would first exhibit (ceteris paribus) this incentivized phenomenon of politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians in competitive, representative races. The third census would also be where most States were expected to exceed 60,000 and have more than one Representative. 1810 was the last census recording Virginia as the most populous State; half a century later it will be geographically shrunk by the unconstitutional formation of West Virginia for reasons addressed in past columns.

The 2020 census recorded US population trends redistributing the fixed 435 congressional districts and electoral vote representation. California, New York and Pennsylvania were among the States which lost a congressional seat, transferred mostly to Southern States - e.g., Texas, Florida and North Carolina. California lost a seat for the first time in US history... instead of gaining relatively fewer representatives as designed?

Texas line dancin’, California dreamin’ and Ohio buckeye’ huntin’ maps for biased redistricting wouldn’t be an issue under a constitutionally correct result. Texas is within their authority to call a special session to revise their maps; legislators can exercise their right to leave in an effort to impede a quorum. At least this slows politburo members from getting more accomplished which is an integral part of the Constitution’s design - even more so today with Comrades Biden and Trump advancing so many policies/programs outside enumerated powers.

Gavin Newsom, Greg Abbott, JB Pritzker, Kay Ivey, Mike DeWine, et al are highly degreed, poorly educated politicians who do not have the intelligence and integrity to get us on the path of Constitutional détente to undo proliferation of hyper-gerrymandered districts. None of those listed above are Gov. Gerry caliber politicians with the courage to sign the Declaration of Independence along with experience as US House member and vice president (as we now install Agnew, Harris, Mondale, Vance caliber pieces of carbon) who allowed party to be more important than principle. Gerry did not veto this despicable redistricting map to be on record against this abomination and defend his once well regarded repute. Now his name is repeatedly evoked in nomenclature for one of the biggest cancers gnawing out the marrow of our once great Republic on the path of more perfect, righteous union enabling today’s political prostitutes who espouse ‘democracy’ in our increasingly concentrated oligarchy under federal hegemony.

Years ago I wrote about this issue in Alabama where federal judges [https://www.alabamagazette.com/story/2023/10/01/opinion/appeal-to-judges-manasco-moorer-and-marcus-mapping-our-future/2643.html] are similarly ignorant of our Constitution’s design. Imagine how many black, female and other diverse congresspersons would result if we had a representative, constitutionally correct result approaching 170 members sent to DC each session where elections may again have competitive consequences. How many of our ‘magnificent seven’ currently installed politburo members (under the rigged, hyper-gerrymandered districting) would retain their US House seat in constitutionally correct, competitive districts instead of our current politically correct result concentrating DC power that protects duopoly parties under the unconstitutional 435 limit?

This applies to the White House down to my county courthouse and unrepresentative municipalities. I’ve observed an incompetent probate judge crowing about drawing each district within a one to four person difference between the five districts he’d drawn instead of the much more difficult task of keeping neighborhoods and communities in the county intact as designed by the percentage tolerance allowed. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see someone map what our future would look like under a Constitutional (one for 30,000) districting result which indeed kept ‘communities of interest’ like counties and municipalities intact and then make clear why they must construct a meager seven districts out of the 167 design because we no longer have a representative US House under the 435 limit of 1929.

The last increase in Lee County Commission District seats to the current five member result was implemented (by the State legislature to avoid Voting Right lawsuits) at just over 60,000 population; approximately one commissioner for every 12,000. County population had tripled from 1870 to 1970. Population has now almost tripled again this past half-century since 1970. With population approaching 200,000 and no change in number of districts, real representation is decaying to one commissioner for every 40,000 with much more to address than those few things States authorized to the federal government enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Sadly, that incompetent, malicious Lee County judge’s droning on about how wonderful he was getting each District within a few person difference (instead of doing the hard work of keeping areas intact as directed with +/- 5% tolerance allowed) sounds much like his fellow politburo members at all levels of government.

A wise path of détente from gerrymander proliferation is gradual undoing of the 435 limit to the Constitutionally correct result (e.g., increase 500 Reps each census) until accomplishing the one for 30,000 result. It took a century under the 435 cap to get this far off course to witness the absurd Biden/Trump, et al results at the executive level and AOC, MTG, et al installations to Congress under such heavily rigged, ballot restricted and manipulated election processes. Much time and wisdom is required to get back on course and out of this quagmire.

To those evoking voting rights acts, consider (re)reading a 2022 column [https://www.alabamagazette.com/story/2022/03/01/opinion/discrimination-via-poor-representation/2319.html] on how poor representation promotes discrimination. The discrimination progressives championed toward accomplishing their desired, unconstitutional results. Now more than ever is the time for legislators and judges to restore ALL voters’ rights and allow more representation and candidates as designed by our wise founding fathers. Weary of folks telling me their ‘feelings’ on how to get out of this swamp, I’ll not listen to anyone’s feelings on what the number ought to be without citing text from the Constitution. In short, I’m all ears to one who exhibits the fortitude, visionary wisdom, integrity and intelligence of our framers. Increasingly clear we do not have this sort of sagacity and conviction in our current politburo members claiming to care about ‘Democracy’ and voters’ rights. Furthermore, orgs like the ACLU have done nothing to fight this discrimination via decreased real representation.

This is how discrimination via poor (unconstitutional) representation works nationally and at the State/local levels. A House unrepresentative cannot stand; how much longer do we have? Census taking has been around since the Old Testament - e.g., Numbers 26 teaches the evil and righteousness it may proffer. Gerrymandering would’ve never evolved and proliferated so malignantly these past centuries if Article 1, Section 2 had been honoured. Little surprise an inspired document like our Constitution provides the path of détente to get us out of this morass.

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.