Mitigation Strategies for Gerrymandering Tool

One of the major roadblocks to finding a solution to gerrymandering is that we don’t have an agreed upon method of determining what exactly is a non-partisan division of districts. As Justice Kennedy pointed out in Vieth v. Jubelirer and then again in Gill v. Whitford, that the court might rule upon it if a standard upon which partisanship could be judged came forth and the court could use to establish whether a state was overly gerrymandered. At the same time, a tool that establishes rules around what is a fairly districted state must be absolutely airtight and not allow for much wiggle room. Once a standard like this is established, it’ll be very hard to argue against it or change it after the long road that has led us here. Due to that, if someone figures out how to manipulate the algorithm or whatever form the tool takes, it would create a legal and regulated method of gerrymandering that we wouldn’t be able to fight against. I think a mitigation strategy against this would be to put in scheduled checks on the methodology to make sure that we have mechanisms to modify it if we notice someone taking advantage of a loophole. For example, after every redistricting round (concurrent with the census every ten years) there should be a review of every state for anomalies. We could even have a judiciary approval board (not congressional) that goes through all 50 states and assesses how they used the tool to create their districts. If they judge any anomalistic use of the tool, they have the power to modify the tool as necessary and require the state to redistrict fairly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *