How Self Gerrymandering Affects African-Americans

March 21st, 2020

The African-American Vote

For the first time in twenty years, the African-American voter turnout rate has declined, falling to 59.6% in 2016 from a high of 66.6% in 2012 (Manuel & Hugo). Many are quick to blame this decrease on political gerrymandering, which can be defined as, “a practice [which] seeks political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts” (Lublin, 186). This argument states that Republican gerrymandering has succeeded in silencing the black vote, which overwhelmingly votes liberal (Manuel & Hugo). Yet, professors and academics alike argue that a low turnout rate among blacks is due to a combination of factors that are often overlooked. The first being a rise in political polarization, which signals an alarming trend in American politics; voters want to be with those who agree with them, and are opposed to new political ideas. This has led to an increase in a phenomenon nicknamed “self-sorting”, which has negatively impacted the African-American community for decades. As described by editor Fred Dews from the Brookings Institute, “most voters have sorted themselves into a party by their ideological views, and their decisions on where to reside have promoted a geographical segregation of like-minded citizens—conservatives to the suburbs, liberals to cities'' (Dews). The issue with self-sorting, sometimes referred to as self-gerrymandering, is that blacks vote Democratic, and they are making their way into the suburbs where a conservative-majority resides. Thus, black’s vote in the suburbs becomes a “wasted vote” (Stephanopoulos, 59). In reality, this paper will challenge the notion that political gerrymandering is to blame for the decrease in black participation during elections, and instead is due to a rise in polarization which, in turn, has led to self-gerrymandering. Additionally, a solution to this problem would be to stop basing redistricting maps on the census, and instead create more randomized districts that provide a more equal representation of the nations’ citizens.

Political Participation

It should come as no surprise that the United States is becoming more polarized, both inside the government and out of it. As Professor Dodson from UC-Merced explains, “in the last few decades, the number of moderates in Congress has declined and both Democrats and Republicans have become more internally unified and more externally opposed in legislative voting” (Dodson, 196). The implications of this polarization are clear; since both dominant political parties are moving towards extremes, voters themselves will move towards extremes as well. The leading theory for the rise in polarization is that gerrymandering-which is the biased redrawing of districts which groups certain types of voters into different districts in order to guarantee a certain outcome-is culpable. As expressed in the Yale Law Review, “if a party can get 50% of the vote in all districts, they can win 100% of legislature even though they are 50% of the population” (Polsby, 54). Although it is constantly debated whether this practice is ethical or even legal, some argue that gerrymandering increases voter turnout, and is therefore warranted. Today, at an average turnout of 57.5%, election participation is the highest it has ever been, yet African-Americans are the only group who has experienced a decrease in voter turnout ("Political Polarization"). This decrease cannot be blamed on gerrymandering alone and is evident from the recent decrease in competitiveness. Competitiveness is the driving force behind a high voter turnout, and hence, if voter turnout increases as gerrymandering has, one would expect competitiveness to increase as well. Yet, as described by Senior Political writer Enten Harry-competitiveness among districts has actually decreased-whereas there were 165 competitive districts 23 years ago, in 2017 only 70 districts could be considered competitive (Enten). For this reason, it is not justifiable to state that gerrymandering is the sole reason for the losses that blacks have experienced, electorally speaking. Instead, there is another factor at play called self-gerrymandering, and it seems like African-Americans are being negatively affected the most.

Self-Gerrymandering

Political polarization plays an essential role in self-gerrymandering. For the past five decades, liberals have been moving to urbanized centers while conservatives have flocked to the suburbs. This is believed to happen, “because people increasingly prefer to live near others who share their cultural and political preferences, [and therefore] are voting with their feet and sorting themselves geographically” (Dews). This has created polarized districts without the help of district gerrymandering, in which a Democrat would represent a city’s population, and a Republican would represent those who live in the suburbs. This has worked to the advantage of African-Americans, since “the Democratic Party owns the issues of civil rights and race in general. The Democratic Party is known to be favorable to the interests of racial minorities and civil rights” (Mangum, 1244). Hence, the black population tends to favor a liberal candidate who will represent their own views, and it works to their benefit to live in an urban center surrounded by people who share their beliefs. Just a couple of years ago, when a majority of African-Americans lived in cities, the black turnrout rate was at its highest due to the, “excitement over the nomination of a black liberal and the possibility of greater descriptive and  substantive representation” (Gay, 589). Yet, due to a rise in city real estate prices, the black population has started to move into the suburbs. John Sullivan from the Applied Research Center, discovered that the black population has been decreasing sharply in all of the largest cities in the nation (Sullivan). As African-Americans are moving into the suburbs, where the vote leans conservative, they are forfeiting the political power that they once held in liberal cities. The negatives of this so-called, “reverse migration” are already beginning to emerge, and they are having a profoundly negative effect on Africa-American voting. Whether it be because of a psychological effect where blacks know that their liberal vote will be worthless in the suburbs, and therefore will not show up to the polls-or due to another factor-it is clear that something must be done to equally represent blacks as they flock to the suburbs.

Conclusion

In summary, the expansion of redistricting for political gains has led to an increase in polarization and a decrease in competitiveness. Yet, this alone is not to blame for the sudden decrease in African-American turnout during elections; instead, blacks have been moving into the suburbs where their vote will not be sufficiently large enough to elect a liberal candidate. Many solutions have been proposed to solve both African-Americans’ flee from the cities to the suburbs, and their low turnout rate (Manuel & Hugo). As such, a solution that has commonly been presented has been to increase the amount of members that can represent a district (Polsby, 54). This, in theory, would mean that a smaller minority could get equal representation in congress, but in the case of African-Americans, the percentage of blacks living in the suburbs is not yet large enough that they would be able to elect a candidate in the suburbs, even if two representatives could be selected. A more well reasoned solution could be to engage in “blind redistricting,” which is a system in which those who redraw districts do not take into account things such as race and political affiliation (McCarthy et al., 666). By using this system, the census (which is gathered every 10 years and is what redistricting is based upon) would play a minimal role in redistricting. These new districts would more evenly, and randomly, distribute the political power of voters. Consequently, this solution could also play to the detriment of African-Americans due to its arbitrary nature. Even despite the solution’s limitations, blind redistricting is worth its risks as it increases the chance for the black community to get equal representation in congress as they migrate into the suburbs.