Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., wants a constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering, the act of carving up congressional districts into bizarre shapes in order to wall off undesirable voters.
Grayson spoke to the Washington Examiner about his Fair Districts Amendment, which is the first of its kind, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“What would this amendment mandate? There is no mandate under the amendment for the quality of partisanship. What the mandate is, there has to be no intent or effect of favoring one party versus another,” Grayson said.
President Obama said ending gerrymandering was a legislative priority of his administration in this year’s State of the Union address, but Grayson’s amendment actually preceded Obama’s announcement by one day.
“I did not have any advance notice the president would be talking about gerrymandering. Obviously, I was delighted,” Grayson said.
He seeks to make districts more logically shaped, not necessarily a mutually exclusive goal from reducing partisan tactics.
“There is a geographic mandate [to the proposal], and in some ways you already have that under existing law, but it hasn’t been very effective,” Grayson said.
Grayson’s amendment to the Constitution would require that districts “consist of contiguous territory (including any territory that would be contiguous except for the fact that it is bounded by a body of water or territory outside of the state),” “districts shall be compact” and “districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.”
Take Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District, which was just ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, seen by a majority of judges as packing African-Americans into a single Virginia district. The district cuts across the central part of the state, stretching from the inner city of Richmond to many inner cities in Hampton Roads. Critics say that’s no accident.
Grayson, a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016, thinks this is killing his party’s chances nationally.
“[Florida] is a 50-50 state. Barack Obama won it twice, but he won it once by three points, and once by one point, so this is a very purple state, if you will. And because of gerrymandering, the representation in Congress was 19 to six [in favor of Republicans] after the 2010 election,” Grayson said.
“In Ohio, another purple state, the Democrats have won more often than they’ve lost, but it’s been close in every presidential election going back many years, the representation is 10 Republicans to four Democrats,” Grayson continued.
It’s possible that discrepancy is also partially due to diverging turnouts in midterm and presidential elections. Republican voters more consistently turn out for midterm elections, which 2010 was. Grayson also lost his congressional race in 2010, but was elected back in 2012.
Even so, after Obama carried Florida in 2012, and a majority of Floridians voted for a Democrat for the U.S. House in 2012, Republicans still carried 17 districts to the Democrats’ 10.
Grayson credits the Democratic uptick between the two elections, though principally on the partial implementation of the Florida law his amendment is based on, the Florida Fair Districts act.
The Examiner asked Grayson if his amendment would have the effect of elevating centrists in American politics, hurting politicians more liberal like Grayson, those who are more conservative, or hold unconventional views.
Grayson didn’t think so. He notes that some states are likely always going to lean strongly in one direction.
“There is no specific mandate in the amendment to mandate equal number of partisan voters in every district … Look, in a place like Utah, that would be impossible, anyway,” he said. “For that matter, you could make the same argument regarding Hawaii, in the other direction.
“The point is, though, you’re not allowed to draw the lines with the intention of helping one party versus the other,” Grayson said.
