New York Times
Ruining
the House By David J. Garrow November 13,
2002
When the Constitution's framers created Congress, they
imagined that the House of Representatives would be the country's
most popularly responsive national institution. The Senate ��� slow,
deliberative, elite ��� would serve as a counterweight to the more
emotional House.
Judging from last week's elections, it is the House
that has become uncompetitive, sclerotic and immune to change. The
culprit is the gerrymandering of Congressional districts. If reform
is not enacted soon, democratic choice will be sapped out of the
House altogether.
In New Jersey, only one of 13 Congressional races was
won with less than 60 percent of the vote. In New York State, it was
only three of 29, while in Ohio it was only three of 18. In
California, only Gary Condit's House seat was considered up for
grabs; of the state's other 52 seats, 49 of them were won by a
candidate who received 60 percent or more of the vote. Of Florida's
25 Congressional seats, only two were decided by anything closer
than 60-40, notwithstanding a competitive race for governor. In
Illinois only two of 19 races were tighter than 60-40. Michigan
featured just two Congressional contests out of 15 that were closer
than 60-40, while its gubernatorial winner won by only 51 percent of
the vote. This pattern was seen all over the country.
The final tally was depressing indeed: only 39 of 435
House races were won with less than 55 percent of the vote. Even of
the 49 races not involving an incumbent, 35 were won with 55 percent
of the vote or more. Yet at the same time, real political
competition was occurring just a few ballot lines away in the
nation's gubernatorial elections and in many Senate races.
Why? Because those races could not be manipulated by
redistricting to ensure a particular outcome. In 36 gubernatorial
contests, only three were won by upward of 60 percent of the vote
(in Colorado, Nebraska and Nevada) and 23 of the 36 races were won
with less than 55 percent of the vote. Indeed, 20 of the 36
statehouses shifted from one party to another.
While 14 Senate races were won with more than 60
percent of the vote, another 14 of those 34 seats were won with
under 55 percent.
The tenor of House politics ��� divisive and largely
resistant to bipartisan compromise ��� is one consequence of
gerrymandering. More competitive races would attract more voter
interest and possibly make the House a body less dominated by
partisan motives. There is one solution: control over redistricting
must be taken away from politicians whose goal is to minimize
competitive democratic elections and maximize the number of safe
seats for their party. Currently a dozen states include some element
of nonpartisanship in their redistricting process, but only a few of
them, like Iowa, actually place some incumbents in competitive
districts.
Perhaps maximizing the number of Americans whose
Congressional votes might make a real difference in a House race
will require judicial intervention. In any case, voters need to
demand an alternative to a system that has turned the people's House
into a place where competition doesn't much exist.
David J. Garrow is a professor at Emory University
School of Law. |