Columns, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics

“Dismantling Democracy” to Save it: How Democrats Rediscovered the Joys of Rigging Elections

Below is my column in the Hill on the frenzy of gerrymandering in various states and the selective condemnation of President Joe Biden of such practices in North Carolina.

While denouncing Republicans for gerrymandering as attack on democracy, Democratic figures like lawyer Marc Elias are under attack for raising millions to support Democratic gerrymandering. Elias previously declared “Republicans gerrymander like this because they do not want free and fair elections.” (Elias was previously accused of lying to conceal the Clinton campaign’s funding of the Steele dossier, has sought to reverse election results, and has been sanctioned by the courts). Notably, the raw gerrymandering in New York not only seeks to rig the coming elections but openly flouts the will of the voters who repeatedly demanded that the practice stop in their state. 

Here is the column:

“Voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around.” With those words late Friday night, President Biden celebrated a decision by North Carolina’s supreme court rejecting new state legislative districts that favored Republicans. The ruling was used to support Biden’s past portrayals of Republicans as the enemies of democracy, including their use of gerrymandering.

Biden is not alone. Former President Obama condemned Republican gerrymandering efforts as threatening democracy. The liberal Brennan Center has declared that “gerrymandering is deeply undemocratic.” Liberal commentators insist the choice is simple: “It’s restricting gerrymandering or being complicit in the dismantling of democracy.”

Biden was careful to keep his focus on North Carolina in stating that “for too long, partisan gerrymandering has allowed politicians to rig the political process and draw districts in their favor.” Indeed, it required an impressive act of myopia to avoid noting that Democrats have engaged in raw gerrymandering in various states, too. But the North Carolina decision could seriously undermine Democratic plans in other states to rig elections and gain seats in Congress.

For example, in New York Democrats want to add four new seats through gerrymandering, to try to retain control of the U.S. House. One district is designed to guarantee the reelection of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has held hearings on the evil of  — you guessed it  — gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is to politics what doping is to sports. It is universally viewed as a cheat, an effort to manipulate districts to guarantee electoral victories. Drafting coherent districts evenly and logically to divide populations is not particularly difficult. School districts usually are designed to evenly distribute populations with schools as center points; those school districts often serve as voting locations. Once you depart from such logical divisions, however, political pressures produce a grotesque progeny of malformed districts.

The Nadler district would make Elbridge Gerry blush. In 1812, Gerry — a Founding Father, vice president and governor of Massachusetts — signed off on a district designed to guarantee a seat for the precursor of today’s Democratic Party. The district resembled a salamander, so the Boston Gazette deemed it the “Gerry-mander.”

Notably, the original gerrymandered district looks a lot like what is now being dubbed the “Jerrymander.”

To cite Biden, Rep. Nadler did not simply “choose his voters.” His contorted district virtually selects them individually, weaving through neighborhoods in search of support.

Nadler’s district is not the only monstrous creature dwelling on the map. Republicans currently hold eight of New York’s 27 seats in Congress. Despite being a state in which roughly 38 percent of voters went for Trump in 2020, Republicans would have an advantage only in four districts under the redrawn map, allowing Democrats to pick up the other four. For example, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis previously beat an incumbent, Democrat Max Rose, in the 11th District. To guarantee that Rose will now win, Democrats stretched the district to include the liberal area of Park Slope in Brooklyn.

This was not supposed to happen.

In 2014, New Yorkers took the extraordinary step of amending Sections 4 and 5 of Article III of their state’s constitution. They created the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to prohibit drawing maps “for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” (N.Y. Const. art. III, § 4(c)(5)).

However, the fix was in. After proclaiming a new day of fair and honest elections, the commission was set at ten members divided evenly. Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, admitted that the commission was designed to fail: “Of course it was. When you have an equal amount of people from either side, you are inevitably going to get a deadlock or a tie. And that’s exactly what happened here.” In other words, all the democracy stuff was a lie. When the commission inevitably deadlocked, the Democratic-controlled legislature went on a gerrymandering frenzy.

Nevertheless, President Biden and Democrats like Nadler are seeking to take control over state election laws in the name of democracy. It does not matter if they are using the same anti-democratic measures as they accuse Republicans of wielding, because their motivations are purportedly pure even if their means manifestly are not.

There will be challenges this year to gerrymandered districts by both parties. While the Supreme Court said in 2019 that political gerrymandering is constitutional in Rucho v. Common Cause, such changes can be struck down when they result in the dilution or suppression of minority voters. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on one such race-based challenge to new districts in Alabama. A similar challenge in Illinois failed despite districts that rival Nadler’s in fantastical, illogical shapes to gain Democratic seats.

The North Carolina opinion could complicate things for Democrats, however, if it is applied to other states with anti-gerrymandering laws. The law was notably a gerrymandering case based on partisan rather than racial impacts. The North Carolina court acknowledged the holding in Rucho but voted 4-3 that it could strike down “excessive partisan gerrymandering” on state constitutional grounds. It found that Republican lawmakers drew maps that deprived voters of their “substantially equal voting power on the basis of partisan affiliation.”

The New York districts also are the subject of a lawsuit under the state constitution.

The intent of the voters could not be more clear: While the commission was rigged to fail, voters clearly did not know that and reaffirmed their intent in 2021 when Democratic legislators tried to pass a proposed constitutional amendment to regain redistricting authority if the commission failed to produce redistricting plans. The voters rejected that effort. Thus, these Democratic groups are not only seeking to rig coming elections, but are thwarting the will of voters as expressed in two ballots.

Nevertheless, Gov. Kathy Hochul pledged to “use [her] influence to help Democrats expand the House majority through the redistricting process.” The Democrats and Hochul did precisely that in going ahead and gerrymandering the districts while continuing to condemn Republicans for trying to destroy democracy.

Both parties have engaged in gerrymandering this year — but the blinkered outrage of President Biden to Republican gerrymandering only highlights the hypocrisy of our times. We are left, yet again, with a gang of arsonists espousing fire safety in our political system. Despite voters calling for an end to gerrymandering, their leaders continue to lie to them and frustrate efforts to end this insidious practice.

While the National Democratic Redistricting Committee called for a “Fair Districts Pledge” to “commit to restoring fairness to our democracy,” these politicians have instead followed Oscar Wilde’s rule that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

 

85 thoughts on ““Dismantling Democracy” to Save it: How Democrats Rediscovered the Joys of Rigging Elections”

  1. “Democrats have engaged in raw gerrymandering in various states, too.”

    Gerrymandering for me, but not for thee.

    Gosh, where have we heard that blatant contradiction before?

    1. Sam, are you saying that we, as a nation, must continue gerrymandering so that ‘Republicans can even the score?’

      A better idea would be to just stop it NOW.

  2. What Turley neglects to say is that the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly tried to pass legislation that would counter gerrymandering efforts by both parties. This legislation has been passed in the House, only to face a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

    Democrats in Congress want all states to be constrained from gerrymandering. Republicans in Congress do not.

    As should be no surprise to anyone: as long as gerrymandering is legal, both parties will do it. But at least one party is trying to end it in all states. The other party is not.

    1. Democrats in Congress want all states to be constrained from gerrymandering. Republicans in Congress do not.
      Try reading the whole post. New York passed the law you seek. It was designed to fail.

      Iowa has a pretty good law to draw new districts. It requires following county lines, and smaller unit of govt lines. Width and hight differences are limited. The district like Nadlers would every make it to an initial draft.

      The point of bringing up Iowa, was to give an example of how federalism can work. Got to the States and see what is woking, and what is not.

      1. I read the whole column before I commented.

        Try not to make false assumptions.

        1. What you call reading is not generally considered reading. It’s more of a search form confirmation leaving everything else out.

  3. GERRYMANDERING IS WRONG, PERIOD.

    This whole column is a stupid What About. Congressional districts should be drawn by independent commissions. The lines should follow state, county, municipal boundaries, or, waterways. Gerrymandering is an issue we should have left in the rear view mirror long ago.

  4. Quick History: Of course, we used to create districts based on a community of interests, say a city and surrounding suburbs. Now after Baker v. Carr the judges are “authorized” to stick their back-checking noses into any district they please on equal protections grounds defying the age-old legal doctrine of restraint on the political questions that the legislatures were designed to handle. So busybodying has led us here where, of course, equal protection is disincentivized and absurd districts rule the day.

  5. “It’s a good thing we don’t get as much government as we pay for.”
    Will Rogers

    If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress? Congress.

  6. Professor Turley once again lays open the reality of politics extant in our Nation.

    The three Judge Panel in North Carolina voted unanimously to deny the Democrat Suit….two Republicans and one Democrat…..their decision was right and proper.

    The North Carolina State Supreme Court comprised of four Democrats and three Republicans voted along party lines.

    Carefully consider the General Assembly conducted its “Gerrymandering” in clear view of the Public who were INVITED to attend the Proceedings in person, the Proceedings were streamed live for TV viewers, and public comment was welcomed.

    The Democrats considered that unfair, corrupt, and intolerable…..which is exactly what they view anything the Republican controlled General Assembly does.

    Justice Anita Earls, a close friend of Eric Holder and who had represented the Democrat Party on voting issues to include the drawing of Districts, refused to recuse herself despite a former Client. being a party to the Suit being considered by the Supreme Court.

    A second Democrat Justice is running for re-election to the Supreme Court…..and refused to recuse himself despite the clear Precedent set by two former Supreme Court Justices who did Recuse themselves for exactly the same reason.

    Leading up to the Supreme Court Hearing….the Democrats were insisting two of the Republicans Justices recuse themselves and flatly rejecting any consideration their own two should Recuse themselves.

    Such is the Ethical Standard of the Democrat Party in North Carolina….one which stems from the Democrats holding control of the State for approximately One Hundred Forty Years….and who Gerrymandered the Districts every time it was done.

    Think me wrong….do your own research on this.

    1. Ralph Chappell, thank you very much for providing these details. I’m a resident of New York State. I’m very troubled by these manipulative tactics here. Many of us are singing the Blue State Blues.

  7. Districts should be more or less surveyed along the cardinal directions to get a broad cross-section of perspectives. Of course, at this point, there might still be disagreements as to what constitutes “North”.

  10. Well Turley is right, to a point. According to the Supreme Court gerrymandering by party affiliations is legal thanks to republicans. Both parties engage in the practice quite openly. One key difference is republicans are better known for gerrymandering by race than political party, but that is becoming more rare due to laws against it being upheld in court.

    I’m against gerrymandering, but as long as republicans keep justifying it there’s no reason why democrats shouldn’t be doing it either. Only when republicans themselves agree to get rid of them is when democrats should too.

    1. Svelaz:

      Ethics are personal values. You are allowing grifters to define you and make you a grifter.

      Pathetic.

    2. So long as blacks vote around 90% Democrat, gerrymanders by political affiliation will appear to have racial overtones in many instances, because being black will be used as a proxy for voting Democrat.

    3. SvelazPlease explain why SCOTUS ruled as it did “thanks to republicans.” Are you referring to Rucho? As you know, SCOTUS did not rule on the merits….

      1. Lin, it was republicans who often justified gerrymandering when arguing against democrats claiming it was mostly racial gerrymandering. Republicans made their case with party affiliations instead and successful convinced SCOTUS that such criteria by party affiliation is NOT unconstitutional. If republicans can do it as such so can democrats. Democrats would rather get rid of the whole motion of gerrymandering all together. Can you find any instances when republicans floated any proposals to get rid of gerrymandering?

        1. Svelaz: Baloney. And you know it. The companion/consolidated SCOTUS case with Rucho was,Lamone v. Benisek. (the questionable conduct therein having pre-dated that of Republicans) As quoted from SCOTUS:
          “In 2011, the Maryland Legislature–dominated by Democrats–undertook to redraw the lines of that State’s eight congressional districts. The Governor at the time,Democrat Martin O’Malley, led the process. He appointed a redistricting committee….and asked Congressman Steny Hoyer, who has described himself as a “serial gerrymander,” to advise the committee. The Governor later testified that his aim was to “use the redistricting process to change the overall composition of Maryland’s congressional delegation to 7 Democrats and 1 Republican….”

  11. Turley’s column today on gerrymandering shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he has become a political operative for the RNC.

        1. You mean Bezos’s box maker? Yeah, he’s a real conservative, like mccain or romney or clinton

  12. You actually highlight the hypocrisy of our times, Jon. It’s hard to find a more glaring example than your push piece work here on your blog. There is no reason to discuss gerrymandering in the U.S. without discussing PA 7 and you’ve avoided that subject in this post. Plus Elias is a much more principled attorney when speaking on election fairness than you are. He does make your grudge list quite often though so it sparks curriosity about the nature of your resentment.

    Bug

  13. THE DEM’s cry foul on Voter ID, adherence to the voting laws, and etc. They cry every vote must count as long its one of their stuffed ballots or voting from the grave or electronic switching votes. Gerrymandering is used on both sides but the DEM’s so far do it better. 2022 elections are going to be a disaster for the DEM’s and they will do anything to steal it, especially if it mens they will lose all their power.

  14. I am out of indignation for Democrats. They are despicable, and a multiplier of at least 1,000 of what the now largely extinct fat cat Republicans were. If the do not learn to concede gracefully here and there, is is not at all going to end well.

    BTW: this is and actual strategy: my smallish and insignificant blue state just did redistricting for no discernible reason whatsoever. They are attempting to ‘pack’ the House, and I doubt they’ll relent on the courts. Modern Dems are pure totalitarian evil to a free and equal society, and it is insanity.

    2. James, I am memorizing your comment. “Out of indignation” accurately represents my view now. The Dems are beneath contempt. On every front from Gofundme’s decision that it knows best about donors’ gifts to attempts to pack the Court to elites’ contempt for the working class to imposing their will regarding medical procedures in violation of The Nuremberg Code there is nothing left of Democrats and liberals except for raw authoritarianism.

      1. Thanks. I am not a hateful person – I believe in debate and discourse. What the modern Dem party had become is inexcusable and dangerous. No sane person would thin that any of it is OK.

  15. Since we are and have always been a Constitutional Republic and have never been a democracy but only used a small portion after rejecting nine times the attempts to include democracy in our Constitution and since we seem to be unable to use that small portion without violating the Constitution and the oaths of office I can’t give the above statement any credence at all. None.

  16. The Ds have introduced bills to ban all gerrymandering. The Rs have blocked them. SCOTUS has made it clear that partisan gerrymandering is legal. It is insane to expect the Ds not to play hardball using the existing rules while trying to fix the rules. Not hypocrisy at all.

    1. Sammy, you need links to prove your statement of fact.
      I have no idea if your talking state or federal, no idea of the time frame you referenced. With out facts it sounds just like Charlie Browns teacher.

    1. Margot: Wasn’t Elias the one who supplied the [ostensible] “whistleblower” to Adam Schiff?

      1. Just like that woman that tried frame Kananaugh, and the Whistle blower, Democrat operatives drafted the letters to start the process.

  18. If you have unpopular ideas, what else can you do to ensure you’re able to keep the power that allows you to continue ripping-off the taxpayers? Can’t say I’m surprised. That Voter No ID law, that would help them to that end too – no one really believes that one is designed to increase voter access and integrity, do they? Pure contempt of the electorate to think that. Vermin.

  19. I’m shocked – shocked – to hear that the D’s would engage in something so crass as gerrymandering

  20. And the losers are Americans everywhere.

    What the politicians doing these gerrymanders are doing is every bit as what Ms Moses did by fraudulently trying to vote.

    She got 6 years and these politicians get cheered.

    Protected and unprotected.

    Not the system that we want.

Comments are closed.