Where have all the competitive districts gone?

We are fast approaching the end of congressional map redrawing season in anticipation of the 2022 midterm elections. With 435 House seats up for grabs, the maps being drawn and enacted into law will be used for five election cycles. Partisan gerrymandering of such maps has been the order of the day. What is becoming apparent is that the casualty for such gerrymandering are competitive districts. 

Ballotpedia ranked just 42 house districts as battleground races in 2020. The outcomes were consistent with this ranking, with the same number resulting in a margin of victory of less than 5 percent. The results in 2018, 2016, 2014 and 2012 were similar skewed against competitive races. 

Maps being drawn and enacted into law in several states indicate the House races in 2022 will be even less competitive.

Consider the Illinois map, which the governor signed into law on Nov. 23 and has a clear Democrat gerrymander bias. It appears the goal of this map was to protect as many seats held by Democrats as possible, with 14 of 17 districts leaning blue. The previous map had two districts that were highly competitive (within 5 percent) and three that were competitive (within 10 percent), according to fivethirtyeight.com. The new map has three districts that are highly competitive and three that are competitive. The issue of concern is that all the competitive districts lean blue. 

Texas offers a similar type of bias, except it is gerrymandered to support Republican candidates. Lawmakers packed districts around Dallas, Houston, and Austin with Democratic voters, and diluted Democratic leaning voters elsewhere around the state. This means that instead of six highly competitive districts, Texas is now left with just one. Moreover, those Democratic House seats lost in Texas will offset Democratic House seats gained in Illinois.

New maps in North Carolina, Indiana and Maryland provide other examples of gerrymandered maps that reduce the number and extent of competitive districts. 

Competitive races force candidates to listen to their constituents. If the preponderance of House races are foregone conclusions, then elected officials allegiance is with the national party, not the people who voted for them.

What can voters do to create headwinds for such egregious gerrymandering? 

The final signature that enacts all these maps into law are state governors. When they come up for reelection, think twice before supporting their candidacy.

A divided government between state legislatures and state executives would provide more accountability to voters. This is the case in Wisconsin, when the Democratic governor vetoed a Republican drawn map. This put the map decisions into the courts. However, given that Democratic voters are concentrated around Milwaukee and Madison, using the 2011 map as a starting point and working toward compact districts ensures that the 2022 map will favor Republicans.

Support federal laws that requires congressional maps to be drawn by independent commissions or provide specific standards that combat gerrymandering. Bills before Congress like the For the People Act and the Freedom to Vote Act both included such provisions for drawing such maps. Standalone legislation that both parties can support would serve the interests of all voters. 

Lastly, only vote for candidates that are in competitive races. If your congressional race has been gerrymandered to be more than 15 points against your candidate of choice, there is no way that he or she can win. Leave that race unmarked on your ballot. It will not change the outcome of the race, but will muddy the water for future map drawing when prior election results are used for gerrymandering. 

Competitive districts are a casualty of gerrymandering. Without competitive districts, elected representative have little motivation to serve the best interests of their constituents, and legislative bodies have little motivation to compromise when crafting laws. Such rigid partisanship makes it more difficult for our nation to function in a manner that serves everyone’s best interests. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem; it is an American problem. At the end of the day, everyone loses when all winners in House elections are preordained.

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research group on computational redistricting is committed to bringing transparency to the redistricting process using optimization algorithms and artificial intelligence.