The Rocky Road To Redistricting Reform

A three-part series by Dan McLaughlin in National Review surveys the prospects for gerrymandering reform following a year in which Democrats, rather than Republicans as widely predicted, appear to have gained ground overall in the redistricting process. McLaughlin nicely lays out the history of partisan dynamics on this issue, offers an effective critique of Democrats’ chief bills in Congress, and has some supportive words for what I agree is the best reform path. At the same time, as I see it, he too eagerly accepts the idea that the design of districts is going to be political all the way down no matter how you arrange it, and too readily dismisses efforts to develop redistricting formats that are more independent of incumbent interests.

On the partisan dynamics, as practically everyone has noted by now, the Democrats have used this year’s redistricting cycle to their advantage, aided by baroque gerrymanders in Illinois and New York. And all of a sudden, as McLaughlin documents, the death‐​of‐​democracy wailing heard from much of the commentariat last year has given way to Zen‐​like equanimity. Just yesterday, a New York Times news analysis used the term “fair” five times to describe the emerging House map, which by some measures is both more gerrymandered and less competitive than the last one.