Texas, Gerrymandering and the Truth

Elbridge Gerry was the 5^th Vice President of the United States and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  Unfortunately, he is best known to history for a despicable and ubiquitous political bit of skullduggery—the gerrymander!  [By the way, what is universally referred to as the gerrymander, with a, “j” sound at the beginning like, “Jerry” should actually be pronounced with a, “g” sound like, “Gary.”]  It seems that Mr. Gerry, as governor of Massachusetts, and a member of the Democratic-Republicans (now there is a phrase that should give some neo’s a reason to pause and ponder!),  re-mapped a state senatorial district so that its sweeping curve encompassed the lion’s share of the opposing, Federalist party.  Let the Federalists’ win (indeed, overwhelm) one district, leaving the rest to his own D-R’s.  The grotesque and artificial district was characterized in the local papers as a salamander, hence the word, “gerrymander.” 

Gerrymandering is a method of creating voting districts which stack the deck to the advantage of a particular group.  It does so by maximizing the, “wasted” vote of citizens who will predictably cast more votes for candidate A than needed to beat candidate B.  If you pack all the A votes in one spot they will give A an overwhelming victory.  But in the districts surrounding A’s victory, the lack of A voters will assure a victory for B candidates.  Gerrymandering subverts the, “one man, one vote” principle. 

            In Texas the April 3 primary appears to be in serious peril because of politics and gerrymandering.  It seems that the Republicans did the unthinkable.  They achieved a majority in the state assembly during a year when electoral maps would be redrawn.  If the Democrats had done this (as they have during much of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s) and either packed or fractured the districts to assure maximum Democratic representations the Republicans would have gnashed their teeth, cried fowl and swallowed the bitter pill.  That is how the game is played.  But, now that the tables are turned, the Democrats are playing a predictable card.  The Republicans, they say, are not just helping their side, they are, “disenfranchising” minorities.  Nonsense!  Republicans will happily accept any vote from any person of any ethnic stripe.  What is more, they will do right by them, encouraging equality of opportunity, reward for hard work and guardianship of rightfully earned property.  Republicans are good people. 

            Never mind that the, “white” population in Texas has dropped below 50% (sounds like a minority to me).   Never mind that the black and Latino groups can’t decide which one of them is the most, “deserving” minority and thus agree on a division of districts.  Never mind that, frankly, any minority group wanting to win a seat could always field a Republican candidate.   Let’s face it, what the Democrats wants is not more minority districts, what they want is more Democratic districts.  If they could achieve electoral victory with a lily white constituency they would through Blacks and Latino’s under the bus in a heartbeat.  Every minority voter not thick in the Democratic hierarchy knows this. 

            Since I think it is cheap and easy to complain without offering a solution, I have a suggestion.  Remove the drama by passing a law that all congressional districts must have at least 66% of their landed area within the same radius from the center of the district.  The remaining 37% can be as bazaar as the ruling party wants, but that will keep the majority of the district more contiguous and less opportunistic. 

            Keep, “one man, one vote” while you keep the faith.