The Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, and efforts by faction-led state legislatures around the country to redraw district maps, has brought the practice of gerrymandering to the attention of the nation. Gerrymandering is a major symptom of the underlying flaws in our election system. But what is gerrymandering exactly, and what can be done here in Arizona about this problem?
Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to give one political party an unfair advantage.
The term dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a district map that resembled a salamander—hence “Gerry-mander.”
There are two main tactics:
- Packing: Concentrating the opposing party’s voters into a few districts so they win those by huge margins—but lose everywhere else.
- Cracking: Spreading the opposing party’s voters across many districts so they never form a majority in any district.
Both methods let map-drawers choose their voters rather than have voters choose their representatives.
The harmful effects of gerrymandering stem from the noncompetitive districts it creates. When one party has a 10-point advantage, the district becomes “safe,” and the real election occurs in that party’s low-turnout primary. The general election becomes little more than a formality. In many cases, primary elections determine winners with support from less than 10% of the district’s voters.
Some states, including Arizona, have sought to reduce gerrymandering by establishing independent redistricting commissions that redraw district boundaries every 10 years after the census. These commissions help prevent extreme gerrymandering, but they do not eliminate safe districts. Today, in Arizona, 24 of 30 legislative districts and 6 of 9 congressional districts remain safe for one party. As a result, about 80% of state legislators are effectively chosen in low-turnout primaries dominated by the most partisan voters.
Voter Choice Arizona advocates for three reforms that together would work synergistically to not only limit the effectiveness of gerrymandering but would create an election system that is more reflective of the will of the voters.
Equalizing Signature requirements– right now independent candidates need up to six times as many signatures just to get on the ballot than do candidates from one of the parties. This requirement reduces competition between parties and often leaves voters with only two choices on the ballot. Increasing competition, by increasing the number of candidates, offsets the effectiveness of gerrymandering.
Top-five primaries help shift the real decision from low-turnout primaries to competitive general elections, where 80% of voters participate. In top-five primaries, all voters can participate, and the five candidates with the most votes advance to the general election. This gives voters more choices in the general election, prevents partisan primaries from deciding most elections, and encourages candidates to appeal to the broad base of their electorate. The outcome is lawmakers who are more accountable to all voters and more likely to collaborate in a bi-partisan manner.
In the general election, ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and those votes transfer to the voters’ next choices until one candidate earns a majority. In addition to ensuring a majority, ranked-choice voting eliminates the problem of vote-splitting. Voters never have to worry whether or not they are “throwing their vote away by casting a vote for a candidate who may not be seen as competitive. Voters can vote their conscience and then choose a backup who more accurately reflects their values should their first-choice candidate be eliminated. As a result, elections become more civil, because candidates need to appeal to the consensus of the majority of voters, rather than simply focusing on increasing the voting of a particular faction. This changes the incentives for candidates and makes gerrymandering far less effective.
Rules drive incentives. Incentives drive behavior. Behavior drives outcomes. If we want more accountable, productive lawmakers, we have to improve the rules that shape the outcomes.
The combination of equalized signature requirements, top-five primaries, and ranked-choice voting is known as Top Five Voting. While each reform offers important benefits on its own, their combined effect is far more powerful.
Some will argue that there is already too much distrust of our elections, that we should not rock the boat by changing the rules. However, most election distrust focuses on validating qualified voters and the process by which ballots are cast and counted. Neither of these is made worse or better by Top Five Voting. We should not let status quo bias prevent progress, but favor reasoned and temperate improvements. Arizonans understand that our current system is toxic and broken. Our current election system reduces representation in a mad grab for power and feeds this cycle of increasing anger and hate. If we are looking for a solution, we must start by changing the system that causes the problem.