Earlier this year two gerrymandering cases came before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court bypassed the opportunity to rule on the partisan practice. In Maryland, Republican voters were the losers and in Wisconsin Democratic voters lost. In both instances, the court declined to make a decision on partisan gerrymandering.
In Michigan, a state with badly gerrymandered districts, voters have taken matters into their own hands and will get the chance to determine how the state should be split on the November ballot. This is a win for democracy and a potential model for other states frustrated by partisan districts.
Currently, Michigan lawmakers control how districts are drawn, but the proposal on the ballot would give the authority to an independent commission with thirteen members, strict requirements, and mandates for public meetings.
To get the initiative in front of voters, Voters Not Politicians, a group for gerrymandering reform, gathered more than 400,000 signatures and initially gained approval from officials at the Board of State Canvassers in June. Then, a different group challenged that proposal saying that it could not be considered an amendment to the state constitution but a revision, meaning that a constitutional convention would be necessary.
On Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that this challenge did not have merit in a 4-3 decision. As outlined in the majority opinion written by Justice David Viviano (appointed by Republican Governor Rick Snyder), the proposal to create a nonpartisan committee actually restores the intent of the 1963 Michigan Constitution and does not “significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government.”
This decision that allows the gerrymandering proposal to be on the ballot has implications beyond Michigan, as it could serve as a model for other states looking to rein in gerrymandering with voter initiatives.
Broadly addressing gerrymandering, even though the U.S. Supreme Court seems unwilling to take the issue on is important for American democracy. The practice of gerrymandering to create one sided “safe” partisan districts undermines democracy and undercuts the influence of voters in favor of politicians who draw the lines.
For one thing, gerrymandering makes partisan politics even more extreme, leading to polarization. This happens because in gerrymandered districts which are dominated by one party, the real race is in the primaries, which means that contestants are likely to try to demonstrate party bona fides rather than foster broad appeal.
Gerrymandering also denies portions of the population a voice in politics. In districts drawn by Democrats, Republicans are marginalized and vice versa. Even when districts are drawn in such a way that on the state level one party is able to exercise control, in individual districts those lines might mean that members of that same party are denied a meaningful choice of representation.
The real issue with gerrymandering, however, is that it undermines democracy.
Gerrymandering means that there are fewer contested races each year. While this might be good for political parties who are assured of victories and therefore need less money and less staff, this is bad for voters who are represented by politicians who have less interest or need to address the issues their voters care about undercutting the very purpose of elected representation.
Michigan isn’t the first state to have voters demand a solution. In Ohio, voters passed a bipartisan deal that gives the minority party more say in congressional maps. That deal was conceived of by a Republican-controlled legislature, and will likely result in fairer maps for voters of all political stripes. Unlike the Michigan proposal, however, Ohio lawmakers kept control over drawing the districts, although new rules on how the maps to be drawn were part of the bill.
Both Ohio and Michigan, along with Utah and Missouri which also have ballot initiatives before voters in November, present models on how redistricting reform can come from the state level and give voters a choice in how they are represented. Other states hoping to find similar solutions might look to these models as examples.
Those efforts will be more difficult, of course, in the 24 states that don’t allow citizen-driven ballot initiatives, but reforms in Michigan and elsewhere could still put pressure and draw renewed scrutiny to the issue. This seems to have worked on Colorado. Voters will get to decide whether to grant authority for drawing congressional districts to an independent redistricting commission after both the Democrat controlled state House and the Republican controlled Senate voted unanimously to put proposals on the ballot.
As Trump has constantly reminded voters, the system is rigged. Gerrymandering is at fault, and it is a good thing that citizens and states are taking it upon themselves to find workable solutions.
