Politics and Salamanders

            Poor Elbridge Gerry. The man accomplished quite a bit, but, for most people, he is only remembered by the word “gerrymandering.”

            Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, vice president of the United States, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a diplomat to France. There’s more, but, even with all of that, his name is known for the practice of gerrymandering – drawing voting districts to favor a particular party or group, even if the shape of the district is ludicrous.

            As governor of Massachusetts, he approved a district that was reportedly shaped like a salamander! I guess merging Gerry with salamander is what gave us gerrymander. Gerry did this to help his own party, the Democratic-Republicans.

            Anyway, I’ve been a part of two redistricting processes (ordeals) in South Carolina: our very first in the 1970s and then again in the 1990s. In the early 1970s, we didn’t have single-member districts. We ran and were elected (or defeated) countywide. The first efforts at coming up with these new districts were not as partisan as one might think. After all, out of 124 House members, only five were Republicans, with only three in the 46-member Senate.

            So, if not partisanship, what was the fight? Incumbency. The question was how to divide the state into single-member districts while protecting incumbents. Friends and co-workers were necessarily going to be pitted against each other unless someone could come up with a whole lot of salamander-looking districts.

            By the 1990s, to the outside it appeared party protection was the big deal. But underneath that surface appearance, protecting certain incumbents was still the main impetus. Several senators laughed and said the only way to get a plan approved was to draw a district for the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee first, and then gradually fit in other powerful senators around that specially drawn district. Party affiliation was a concern, but it certainly wasn’t at the top of the list. Incumbency and self-preservation were on the top.

            Reapportionment or redistricting is mandated every ten years following a census. The reason it’s made the news recently is that a few states have decided to go ahead and redraw lines where a particular party is in power and can control the districts.

            I’m opposed to that no matter which party is in power. When legislators are dealing with reapportionment/self-protection, issues like education, mental health, health care, infrastructure – they take a back seat in the heads and hearts of legislators. Maybe not every single legislator, but at least the overwhelming majority. That’s what is talked about in various private conversations in offices, on the floors of the House and Senate, over meals, etc.

            I say let’s draw districts using a computer program, making sure that the input is done fairly and without bias. No stipulations to protect this man or this woman. Heck, let AI do it without any biased information. No input as to race, gender, political party, or anything else. Basically, here’s a map of South Carolina; here’s the population; devise 124 House seats, 46 Senate districts, and 7 Congressional districts – unless our fast growth warrants us eight districts.

            Is there a fairer, unbiased way to do it? If so, what? Is it the best method for incumbents? No. Is it what’s best for the political parties? Not necessarily. But it is what’s best and fairest for the citizens of our state and of other states.

            Just my 2 cents worth. And 2 cents isn’t worth a whole lot these days.