Politicians draw lines in the sand

One person, one vote is an equation meant to ensure our democracy. Only problem is, we assume that each vote is equal, a noble ideal scuttle by gerrymandering, the very questionable practice of reconfiguring voting districts in response to census-sussed population shifts. The process is politically charged and tainted; both parties delight in rigging the system and will bend the rules for the privilege of doing so.

Many voters are unaware of the Constitution-blessed process of reapportionment, thankfully, Jeff Reichert has completed GERRYMANDERING, an engaging documentary that colorfully and carefully explains the title’s history, its role in present-day campaigns and efforts nationwide to alter its future impact.

After I published a summary of the movie, critical of some aspects, I exchanged (congenial) messages with Mr. Reichert, who kindly agreed to be interviewed for The Warren Report so that we encourage you to consider the machinations that disempower voters by diluting the significance of their ballots and question the quality of our choices before we even step up to the voting booths.

Once you’re read through our conversation, visit endgerrymandering.com and learn how you can make a change. Draw your own conclusions. You’ve got my vote. And, The Warren Report serves as an open-minded forum for your feedback.

WARREN: Your documentary explains the origins of the term, gerrymandering. In your research, was the process of redistricting essentially, unilaterally, corrupt from the outset? Or, were there exceptions as you suggest Iowa serves as today?

JEFF: I think instead of “corruption,” it may be better in the redistricting context to talk about “fairness.” The idea to elect representatives from geographically defined areas was borne from a certain conception of what “fair representation” would look like.  The problem with an idea like “fair” is that it’s fluid, and no one’s going to agree on what that actually means.  The Founding Fathers took a good stab at setting up a workable system within the context of a nation that allowed only white landowners to vote, but we’re now a few hundred years later electing representatives based on a modified and expanded idea of their “fair.”  So, some of the corruption of redistricting is intrinsic to the way we’ve decided to hold elections, and is really not the fault of any specific party or agent.  The real problems come when the weaknesses of the system are exploited even further, and this is what my film is largely about.

WARREN: There is an implication in the movie that Barack Obama‘s district was redrawn to increase the likelihood of his state-level election and that, in turn, dramatically improved his odds of winning on a national stage. Who do you believe was manipulating the process in Obama’s favor?

JEFF: This was very clearly handled by the Illinois State Democratic party — Ryan Lizza did a terrific job of reporting this incident in his Obama article for the New Yorker, “Making It.”  Obama, who had just gotten trounced in a Congressional race against a longtime incumbent, was given carte blanche by the party to change his district and he did so in dramatic fashion, as we show in the film.  The question then becomes: Did this redistricting put him on the fast track to the presidency?  It’s always hard to determine causality in something as nuanced as a political career, but I do think if he’d won that Congressional race in 2000, his path would have been very different.

WARREN: Typically, redistricting coincides with the completion of the census. However, GERRYMANDERING depicts the infamous efforts of Tom DeLay to cut up Texas to enhance the odds of Republicans winning seats. (And what do you know, it worked.) Can any state redistrict at any time? Need their be cause or a public acknowledgement?

JEFF: After the Delay/Texas incident one of the arguments made by those who litigated the case before the Supreme Court was that the plan should be thrown out because districting can only legally happen right after the Census.  The Court disagreed, in essence opening the door to constant gerrymandering.  That so-called “re-redistricting” hasn’t happened all over the country is a testament to how difficult mounting the process is within a legislature, but it doesn’t mean that it won’t.  Congressman John Tanner has recently introduced a bill that would at the very least require states to hold hearings on redistricting, that even this minor measure is unlikely to pass, suggests the degree to which the parties want to keep total control over the process.

WARREN: The great strength of GERRYMANDERING is that it calls attention to such an important factor in our electoral system. Why is so little press generated about this issue? How would you like the mainstream media’s coverage to evolve?

JEFF: I think part of the problem is that redistricting is terribly complicated and you need more time than the average news story gets these days to really tease out why the lines on a map really matter.  Redistricting actually has been getting a great deal of ink in newspapers recently, and I think there is a cadre of political writers out there who beat the drum about this issue every ten years in the hopes people will finally wake up.  But it’s one thing to read about redistricting and another thing to actually see it — to watch a map change, or spend time in the far corners of a district to see just how different it is.  We use in the film a terrific special program hosted by John Chancellor from the sixties in which they actually spent time doing just this, but there’s sadly no room in the current media landscape for this kind of exploration.

WARREN: GERRYMANDERING tracks the progress and eventual passing of Proposition 11 in California. Do you think this approach should be adopted nationwide?

JEFF: Not necessarily.  There are things I like about Prop. 11 and things I don’t like, and even the proponents agree that there are potential pitfalls in their approach.  They went ahead with it because they felt the system needed some kind of shock to help jolt it back into order, and the solution they came up with was very much tailored to the political realities of California.  We do need to change the way we do redistricting nationwide, but I think individual states need to look at their realities and see what kind of change works best for them.  That change may look something like Prop. 11, it may look like something else entirely.

WARREN: Prop 11 had the enthusiastic backing of The Terminator, er, the Governor of the state of California. In the film, one talking head proffers that Arnold only supported the movement because it made for good press. Are you equally cynical?

JEFF: I’m not, even though I did have my questions before we actually began filming.  Having spent time on the campaign trail with the Governor, and spoken with him directly about the issue on a few occasions, I do believe he understands redistricting and is sincere in his desire to reform the process.  Also, given how little press redistricting generally gets, there’s really no sound political upside to tackling it, especially in California, where attempts at reform have failed multiple times.  That he went after it twice, and is now engaged in an attempt to expand Prop. 11 to cover congressional districts suggests to me that he means business.

WARREN: Some skeptics wonder if America’s two-party system actually offers a choice or is it more like choosing between Daniel and Stephen Baldwin?

JEFF: I think now, more than at any point in my lifetime, the differences between the parties are starkly defined.  This ideological separation will fluctuate over time, but there are always differences, and I feel there’s a certain naivete in those who just kind of throw up their hands and say, “they’re all the same.”  To a certain extent that’s true — our electoral model tends to produce certain kinds of candidates, but there is a lot of room in the system for variance.  Can we honestly say that voting for Barney Frank is the same as voting for Michelle Bachmann?

WARREN: Can a third party — even one as histrionic as the Tea Party — ever have a voice in our government given the self-fulfilling prophecy of gerrymandered elections?

JEFF: Winner-take-all elections tend to produce a system dominated by two parties for reasons that are better explained by political scientists than filmmakers  – it’s incredibly complex.  As long as we use this system (where whichever candidate wins at least 50%+1 of the total vote is given the right to represent 100% of the voters) as opposed to, say, a proportional representation model, we will have two parties, and third parties will struggle.

WARREN: What constitutes meaningful representation? Should an elected official represent the needs of all voters in her or his district or should s/he vote purely in accordance with her or his conscience? If we all “are created equal,” why should redistricting even matter?

JEFF: That is a huge question, and one that we chose to raise in GERRYMANDERING briefly instead of really delving into.  Someone recently suggested to me that there might be another entire movie in this question alone.  Personally, I lean towards representatives who attempt to channel the various needs and desires of their constituents into legislation, as opposed to placing all my faith in the conscience of an individual and hoping for the best.  I believe we elect officials because we want them to do things for us, to act on our policy preferences.

We may all have been “created equal” but the world certainly doesn’t do us any favors post-creation, and that’s why we need politics and government – to help us get closer to this ideal.  We may decide at some point that we don’t want to continue using a system where we have to draw lines on a map to determine representation, and that’s fine, but until then we need to work within the limits set for us, while always remaining cognizant of other possibilities.  It was really important that we at least glance in this direction in the body of the film and I’ve actually been gratified how much our quick mention of this fundamental piece of the representation debate gets people talking and thinking.

WARREN: The Warren Report’s motto is: Smarter audiences make better movies. I also believe that smarter audiences make better voters. If you could offer readers one (or more) tip(s) as how to channel their outrage after seeing GERRYMANDERING, what would it/they be?

JEFF: I know we disagree on this a bit, but I strongly believe that the first thing voters should do after seeing the movie is learn the contours of their districts.  I think most will be very surprised about the kinds of communities they’ve been lumped in with and will recognize obvious inequities going on where they live and have questions about why these inequities exist.  The local is ground zero for real political reform and if viewers can take what the film imparts to them about how redistricting works and apply it to their individual situations, it will give them the tools they need to engage when redistricting happens again in a few months.  We are committed to making screenings of the film a place where the groups writing the reform measures can connect with newly educated voters, and have already swelled the ranks of several reform movements here in New York state.  We’re even working on a great online application to make this truly national at www.endgerrymandering.com.

No offense intended, but I think this is actually a far more concrete path to meaningful political reform than some of your suggestions from the initial article you wrote about my film, which, no matter how much I agree with their spirit aren’t particularly actionable.  I believe GERRYMANDERING is poised to move the needle on the redistricting debate.  The film will come out in October and we’re going to be engaging in a slew of activities to push this issue to the fore before people go to the polls in November.