In the speech that resurrected his political career, Abraham Lincoln argued that Americans must “[a]llow ALL the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, and that only is self-government.” Similarly, the Utah State Constitution Article 1, Section 2 establishes that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” The vote is the critical mechanism that enables self-government and preserves citizen capacity to direct, alter, or reform their government.
Drawing congressional maps: fair districting vs. gerrymandering
Voting districts are designated geographic areas that governments create for the purposes of administering elections and assigning representation. Under our system of government, voters within a district come together to select representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. How those districts are designed has a significant impact on the weight and value given to our individual votes. Every 10 years following the census, congressional and legislative districts are redrawn to account for population changes that have occurred in the preceding decade. The way the maps are drawn impacts how much power voters have to choose who represents them and determines how resources are allocated to communities — everything from roads to schools to hospitals.
The updated census maps also must accommodate the Supreme Court determination that political districts should have close to an equal number of people within them. This promotes fair representation, ensuring each person’s vote will count equally. When districts are drawn well, through transparent processes and using impartial criteria, the result is a more representative government that is better able to meet citizen needs. Fair congressional map drawing reflects the diversity of constituents and ensures government resources are delivered equitably. Fair districts make it easier for citizens to hold elected officials accountable and allow good-faith political discourse to thrive. They also strengthen democracy and promote the principle of equality by ensuring that every citizen — regardless of their zip code, background, or party affiliation — has a say in who represents them.
The contrast to this is “gerrymandering” — the term used to describe district maps that are designed to favor a specific political party, incumbent, or group of constituents. When gerrymandering occurs and district maps are redrawn for partisan gain, elected officials are able to choose their own voters, preemptively diluting the power of individual votes and subverting the fundamental democratic principle that voters should be the ones who decide elections, not politicians. In the case of extreme partisan gerrymandering, elections may be uncompetitive and results are predetermined, contributing to greater public apathy toward voting.
Gerrymandering may seem most apparent when districts are drawn with absurd — even disconnected — boundaries. However, while some districts may be funny shapes, this alone does not necessarily indicate that they are gerrymandered. District lines may be following geographic features, like rivers or mountains, or other existing boundaries, like cities or school districts. Similarly, having regularly shaped districts is not a sure sign that fair districting has occurred, because existing jurisdiction boundaries and communities of interest may not have been respected.
Two common ways to gerrymander a district are referred to as “cracking” and “packing.” Cracking splits voters with similar characteristics (e.g., party affiliation, race or ethnicity, socioeconomic class, or even language) into separate districts where their vote is diluted and rendered insignificant. Packing crams similar groups of voters into a small number of districts in order to minimize or negate the influence they can have on election outcomes. Both of these techniques can be used to draw partisan maps that consolidate power to one political party. Unfortunately, the ability to enact extreme partisan gerrymandering has increased over recent decades along with advances in statistical methods and computer modeling.
The push for fair districting in Utah
Independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions represent one way to create fair districting through a transparent and neutral process. All citizens can then trust that the outcomes are fair, even if those outcomes do not favor their personal interests. In 2018, a majority of Utah voters (512,218) indicated their support for both an ethical process and a fair outcome when they supported Proposition 4. The initiative prohibited partisan gerrymandering and proposed the creation of an independent commission that would draw congressional district maps and advise the Legislature through the process of adoption. As passed, the initiative required that, insofar as possible, district maps respect city and county boundaries, be geographically compact, and keep traditional neighborhoods and communities intact. The initiative would have further mandated that legislators consider and vote on the independently proposed maps in an open public hearing, increasing accountability and transparency before constituents.
However, the Utah State Legislature claimed to have supreme authority over the redistricting process and threatened to repeal the initiative. Following discussions between legislators and Better Boundaries, the sponsor of Proposition 4, the legislature passed SB200 in March 2020, which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a significantly watered-down version of what the people voted to adopt in Proposition 4. SB200 allowed for a purely advisory role for the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission (henceforth, Independent Commission), granting a chance to draw and propose neutral maps but no guarantee the Legislature would even consider the Independent Commission’s proposals. Critically, SB200 allowed the Utah State Legislature to create its own Legislative Redistricting Committee that did not have to follow neutral traditional redistricting criteria, and SB200 removed the prohibition against drawing maps that unduly favored incumbents or a particular political party.
The Independent Commission was composed of commissioners across the political spectrum and was structured to be transparent and impartial in order to avoid either the reality or the appearance of partisan gerrymandering. The Independent Commission spent weeks evaluating census data and seeking community input throughout Utah via public hearings and thousands of comments. Every Commission Meeting was open to the public and viewable online. Ultimately, the Independent Commission proposed three options for congressional maps (see Final Report) that prioritized the preservation of communities of interest and were politically neutral. These maps offered all Utahns the best chance at fair representation.
Utah State Legislature adopts gerrymandered maps
Unlike the maps created transparently by the Independent Commission, the State Legislature’s maps were crafted behind closed doors. Furthermore, the Legislature’s efforts to gather public input was rushed, revealing their proposed districts to the public at the start of the weekend, only three days before holding a pro forma public hearing where Utahns expressed their disagreements. There is no indication that the Utah Legislature referenced or considered the independently proposed maps, despite assurances that they would still do so after they repealed Proposition 4. The Legislature’s maps all favored the party in control of the Legislature. These maps did not achieve any of the objectives that had been laid out in Proposition 4 and approved by Utah voters. They fractured communities of interest and failed to offer fair representation to many Utahns. By eliminating a competitive district that had frequently changed hands, the Legislature actually took a step backward, offering less representation than had previously existed. Despite public outcry, the Legislature adopted the partisan maps in a special session in November 2021.
For example, instead of respecting jurisdiction boundaries and traditional neighborhoods, the new maps divide Salt Lake County by placing a portion of the urban core into each of the four congressional districts, including a district boundary dissecting Salt Lake City’s Temple Square. This illustrates the gerrymandering tactic known as “cracking.” Legislators defended this outcome, suggesting it had been done with the aim of creating a mix of rural and urban voters in every district. Such an objective is not a legitimate redistricting criteria used anywhere in the country, in part because it can be manipulated to serve partisan interests. Indeed, even rural voters opposed the Legislature’s goal. Past polling showed Utahns had disagreed with this strategy, and evidence suggests rural Utahns would also benefit from fair districting, both in terms of representation and the apportionment of resources.
Because the enacted congressional map was not drawn based on neutral, nonpartisan criteria, the resulting districts are uncompetitive and all favor one party. When the districts of elected officials are drawn simply to meet partisan objectives, voters pay the price. Free from competition, elected officials can safely ignore voters from other political parties. Incumbents may only face significant challenges from within their own party, shifting political activity toward arguments between moderates and extremists in the same party. Consequently, compromise and collaboration is disincentivized, and there is limited accountability to constituents. Since congressional maps generally remain in place for 10 years, the potential for constituent harm is significant.
Litigation to hold elected officials accountable
MWEG’s Principle of Ethical Government 2a states that: “Political structures and electoral systems should be designed to maximize participation of and provide equitable access to all citizens in a society.” Fairly drawn representative districts are key to ensuring that voters have access and power to vote in meaningful ways.
Because of MWEG’s commitment to the fundamental democratic principles of equality and fair representation, we are joining with other organizational and individual plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit against the Utah Legislature, which has disavowed the people’s legitimate right to dictate the voting process. As a membership organization comprised of engaged citizens, we have turned to the judicial branch, in its important and necessary role in our three-part system of government, to ensure the constitutionality of legislation and protect Utah citizens from legislative overreach.
Conclusion
As the Utah State Constitution makes clear, “All political power is inherent in the people,” who have “the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” In a representative government, that power is conditionally vested in elected representatives, with the expectation that they will make reasonable attempts to attend to the general welfare. When our elected officials fail to serve citizen needs, voters must have mechanisms to hold those officials accountable. Gerrymandering distorts those mechanisms by making it more and more difficult to hold elected officials accountable through the ballot box. By passing Proposition 4, the voters of Utah chose to establish a neutral and fair redistricting process that would preserve their ability to elect and remove representatives.
When the accountability process is derailed by gerrymandering, citizens have no meaningful avenue for exercising the power vested in them by the Utah State Constitution, and the authority granted by that document cannot be exercised. This lawsuit seeks to place citizens at the center of Utah government and to protect their ability to meaningfully engage in the democratic process.
Comentários