Essay Sample on Gerrymandering

To begin, gerrymandering is often portrayed as harmful to voters, but it can actually help voters to make more informed decisions on how they would like to cast their vote. Gerrymandering itself does not change the beliefs of the political parties nor does it force voters’ to change their political affiliation, however, it may influence an individual to realign their political beliefs. Most often when redistricting occurs and the lines are drawn it is to group voters with preferences together, which in turn leads to voter satisfaction in that district. However, it is inevitable that voters affiliate themselves with a different political party and end up living in a district where they are not the majority. If voters can alter the political party that they align themselves with, especially if that party is no longer producing victories in an area due to redistricting, while still incorporating the needs they want to be served, then gerrymandering should pose no threat to voters. 

Political parties all have different views, but they are not so different that a voter can not intertwine the beliefs of their new party and their old party. Meaning, that partisan gerrymandering may “disrupt settled patterns of allegiances and conduct, thereby producing more preference-fulfilling governance… resulting in dynamic rearrangement of party platforms and, thus, better matching constituent policy preferences (Jacob Eisler). But, this disruption of existing political affiliations could prove to be beneficial for voters. When voters realize the change they want to see from their politicians, regardless of initial political party affiliation, they increase the power they have over the politicians they vote to represent them. 

Building off of the idea stated previously, gerrymandering can impede possibly unproductive political relationships leading to increased pressure on representatives to fulfill the needs of voters without regard to their prior political affiliation. This is beneficial to voters. When the needs and preferences of voters change, the rhetoric of candidates typically changes as well. The goal of all representatives and politicians is to be elected to hold or continue to hold a position. To do this, they have to consider what the voters in their political party want so they can cater to the current needs of the people. Of course, this is much more complicated than described as candidates have alliances and pledged commitments but the demands of voters are difficult to disregard. Rather than impair voter representation, “partisan gerrymandering deliberately targets existing political relationships, and its disruptive effects can induce change that is distinctly political, pressuring political parties to respond to voters' desires in a remapped constituency” (Eisler). This pressure is a positive thing for voters as their voices will be heard 

by representatives.

Critics often argue that gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, however, this argument is only substantiated in specific situations. This argument is largely perpetuated through false constitutional obligations without regard to what is actually stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. By dismantling this common argument, the case in favor of gerrymandering is improved. According to Section I Article XIV of the United States Constitution, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. art. XIV, § I). This section, describing the standards for “equal protection”, is most often cited when the constitutionality of gerrymandering is called into question. However, as Dye and Macmanus explain, seeing that the districts at issue are of equal populations, partisan gerrymandering is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under the federal governments' requirements. Looking beyond what is in the constitution, it is also important to note what is not in the constitution. There is no responsibility to give seats to the “contending parties in proportion to what their antiquated statewide view will be” in the constitution (174). These important stipulations weaken the popular argument that gerrymandering is unconstitutional, especially as it becomes more prevalent. 

The debate over gerrymandering has been revisited as the Ohio Redistricting Commission continues to propose and vote on new maps. The Republican map most recently proposed has been described as having districts that lean 54% Republican and 46% Democratic as well as seventeen slightly Democratic-leaning districts. These new maps are slightly altered versions of a different set of maps that were also rejected. Outside consultants were hired to draft their own set of maps: “The consultants’ map would favor Republicans to win 55 of 99 House seats. There are six competitive seats, three of which lean Democratic and three leaning Republican” (Andrew J. Tobias). As more deadlines for the maps continue to pass with no resolution in sight, compromises must begin to be made. New standards were put in place in 2015 to try and stop gerrymandering 

To conclude, gerrymandering may cause voters to rethink their existing, possibly stagnant political affiliations and move towards a party or candidate whose rhetoric aligns with their beliefs and needs, a positive thing for voter representation. When voters change political party affiliations and revise their needs, pressure is put on politicians and representatives to adhere to the demands of the people, giving voters more of a voice. Lastly, The determination that gerrymandering is unconstitutional is complicated because when certain stipulations are met, gerrymandering is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and there is no obligation to allocate seats to candidates proportionally to their statewide view.