Why Gerrymandering & DC Statehood Should Be the Democrats' Focus

President Joe Biden (D-DE)

I have been an active Democrat since before I could vote, and with that comes a certain set of expectations & frustrations.  I actively support most of the policies of the party, and like a lot of Millennial/Gen Z Democrats, I'm to the left of what the party is generally doing.  I'm someone who has their pet issues (I am particularly left-leaning on equal rights issues & climate change in particular), and issues I'm more ambivalent toward (to save my mentions, I'll skip name-checking here), but I'm also deeply pragmatic because I spend so much of my time with elections analysis, so I know how difficult it is to get the stars to align & actually make meaningful change.  

Being a pragmatic Democrat sometimes comes with pitfalls, and usually means you're fighting a losing battle when you have online conversations.  I know, for example, that the people who want to "primary Joe Manchin" are also the people who have no concept of how tenuous a Senate majority like the one we have right now is, and how difficult it would be to forge a majority in the next 2-6 years without someone like Joe Manchin as a key component in it.  I know that wins are made on the margins, and oftentimes in unsexy races.  For all of the talk about the Beto's or Jaime Harrison's, it's really the Jacky Rosen's or John Hickenlooper's, the boring backbenchers, who end up getting you to an actual Senate majority.

But most of all I know that Democrats oftentimes screw up when they have power by expecting the moon-and-stars from their politicians when in reality most legislation is a game of increments.  I've been seeing that in recent weeks when it comes to conversations about the Covid relief bill, HR-1, and the filibuster reform, and so I wanted to share what I think Democrats get wrong in these conversations, so that we can have tangible focus on what actually is the most important, rather than just focusing on trying to get everything & in the process forgetting what the most important things were.

This is the approach, after all, that Republicans take.  Mitch McConnell knew that he couldn't accomplish everything in the two years that the GOP had full control of the government from 2017-19, and so he prioritized.  McConnell's goals were simple-tax cuts, deregulation, & conservative justices.  You'll notice that while the Republicans (specifically then-candidate Donald Trump) ran on immigration, abortion, & healthcare reform, that's not really what they did in office.  All three of those things were messes, and McConnell knew that they would be-it's why while he probably wanted to get those reforms done, he knew the biggest longterm bang for his buck was judicial nominations (as those conservatives can practice law for decades in the higher courts), and tax cuts/deregulation, which are difficult to undo.  Once the GOP lost in 2018, he wasn't able to get to the rest, but he came out of those two years with his three top priorities-a success for the politician.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

I'm not going to sit here and tell Democrats what the most important issues will be (that will vary by person to person), but what I will tell them is that expecting everything at once is impossible or everything at all, on any given issue, is impossible with the current Congress.  If you wanted more liberal legislation, we should've worked harder to elect Sara Gideon & Theresa Greenfield last year.  Compromise will be key, and knowing what the most important elements of a bill are, to solve the problem at hand, is important so you don't give it up chasing after something else.

This was clear with the Covid relief bill.  The reality is with Covid specifically, the biggest problems facing the nation over the pandemic were around how to rollout the vaccine, ensure it's affordable & available to all (as quickly as possible), and how to help those who were unemployed & underemployed by extending unemployment insurance.  The bill did that-it made unemployment benefits go through September, made parts of it non-taxable, provided billions for testing & vaccines, and provided loads of additional benefits to those most impacted to help with small business debts, rental assistance, & energy assistance (for unpaid utilities).  In addition, it included a $1400-per-person stimulus payment and helps to end child poverty by expanding the parameters of the child tax laws.  That's a big deal, and it's a good bill.  

You would've thought that Democrats would be shouting from the rooftops would be ecstatic, but they all collectively on social media seemed to be disappointed with the bill, both because it didn't include a minimum wage increase and because the stimulus payments weren't large enough.  These issues, though, were going to be a tougher sell than we could get in an emergency pandemic bill with a clear ticking clock (the longer the vaccines weren't sent out, the more economic damage we'd need to correct).  Minimum wage and universal basic income (which is essentially what people are driving at with making the stimulus payments larger) deserve their day, but if you make perfect the enemy of the good, you might end up with nothing, or you might not end up with what you were hoping most for, which is what we got (relief for those most financially impacted by the pandemic, and aid to ensure the pandemic finishes through testing/vaccines).

This seems to be a problem with Democrats on HR-1.  I am going to just break it to you now-we are not going to get a proper end to the filibuster in the next two years-Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema won't allow it.  So what you need to do is draw a line in the sand & find the most important thing that we need to focus on Manchin/Sinema on, the thing that can be the "this has to survive no matter what happens" thing that in your negotiations with these two (who have, to date, seemed open to good faith negotiations in a way Susan Collins or Jeff Flake never were) is the thing that you ensure is in the bill when it ends.  The things that will ensure that we have a fighting chance after the 2022 midterms (when, if the Democrats truly want these things, they'll show up & marginalize Manchin/Sinema by padding their majorities).  And if you're thinking like Mitch McConnell (about long-term power, not just what is currently in the headlines), those two things are gerrymandering reforms first, and DC Statehood second.

There are a lot of great things in the HR-1 bill, and for me personally, I would bust up the filibuster to pass most of them as I think the filibuster is arcane & undemocratic.  But while voting reforms are important, and expanding voting access is important, if you look simply at the two things that will have the most lasting, tangible impact to the legislative process, gerrymandering reform & DC statehood are at the top of the heap.

In the bill, all states would have independent, nonpartisan commissions that would draw the federal legislative lines.  It's hard to grasp how different this would be compared to our current system, but I'll try to underline the significance.  First, it would basically make the midterms an even playing field.  Right now it's possible that with redistricting power in Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Tennessee, & Florida Republicans will have the ability to draw lines that would make it virtually impossible for the Democrats to win not just in 2022, but (barring shifts in partisan patterns) for much of the next ten years.  Conversations about voting reforms oftentimes involve a lot of hyperbole (much of it indulgent exaggeration), but this is just a fact & if you take nothing away from this article, it should be this-it is perfectly legal, under current law, to do that in these states, and make it so incumbents like Sharice Davids, Carolyn Bourdeaux, or Emmanuel Cleaver are basically drawn out of their current districts despite representing growing populations, and make it impossible for the Democrats to gain the majority in the House.

Conversely, getting rid of gerrymandering would open up some states that we don't currently consider competitive in addition to taking away the GOP's rigging power in the above states.  An independent commission, for example, would likely draw an additional Democratic/Tossup district in Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, & Louisiana.  They would end partisan gerrymanders that protect Republicans in Ohio & Texas, potentially giving the Democrats anywhere from 5-7 more tossup districts in these states alone.  It would, of course, have the opposite effect for the left in places like Maryland & Illinois, which are deeply gerrymandered to favor the Democrats, but it would be doing what's right and it would make the playing field significantly easier for the Democrats, as congressional districts would reflect the population growth in deep blue urban areas & increasingly blue suburban areas.  If done fairly, it would in fact counter the inherent advantages the Republicans have in the Senate & White House-it would suddenly become considerably more difficult for the Republicans to win the House (it's probable, for example, that the Democrats would have won the House majority in 2012 under this law, giving the Democrats full control of Congress for another two years during Obama's second term).

All of the talk about voting reforms, early voting access...none of that ultimately matters if gerrymandering isn't fixed.  And the Democrats have the tools to do it-it's why Mitch McConnell is trying to can this bill.  It's also likely part of the reason why Republicans are focusing on voting access nationally...because they are hoping that gerrymandering becomes an afterthought in HR-1.  But don't confuse that-it is the most important part of the bill.  It will dramatically change federal elections for the better, and make it considerably easier for at least one branch of the government (without the confines of state lines or the electoral college) to always represent the will of the people.  For a party that has lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, that's scary for them & why the Republicans fear it more than any other part of HR-1.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)

The other issue that needs to be a priority (though I will state right now it is second to gerrymandering reform if you only had to pick one) is making the District of Columbia a state.  This will not, it's worth noting, have the same kind of impact on Democrats' chances as gerrymandering reform will.  Gerrymandering reform might expand as many as 15-20 more seats to be Tossups/Lean Dems than we currently have...DC will just give you two safe Democratic Senate seats & one safe House seat.  For all of the talk about DC "making it so Republicans can never win the Senate again" that's just hogwash-only once in the past 40 years would the shift of power have happened, and that only would've been for six months in 2001.  The main reason to let DC become a state, first-and-foremost, is because it's the right thing to do.  The people have asked for it, they meet the constitutional qualifications, and it's wrong that the people of the state have to be stuck without representation.  They don't want to be part of Maryland, they don't want to be part of Virginia...they just want their own state.

There are three reasons the Republicans are fighting this so hard.  The first, and I'm going to lead with it because it's the one that honestly is the actual reason, is racism.  Republicans know that DC will consistently ensure that two liberal African-American Democrats are in the Senate (both the At-Large delegate and the mayor have been African-American Democrats since the early 1970's).  While it'd arguably be the bluest state in the country regardless of demographics, I think racism is honestly at the root of their objections more than sheer partisanship.

The second objection is because of the math in the Senate. As I said above, historically DC wouldn't matter in the majority of the Senate-only in 2001 would adding two more Democratic senators have made a difference.  But the math after 2020 indicates that it might matter in the near future again.  Obviously adding two senators would make the current Senate 52-50, meaning that Democrats could afford Joe Manchin's defections on a couple of bills & still pass in a tiebreaker.  But it's also worth noting that this would add a new state to Joe Biden's "states carried" list.  That's a big deal because right now it's Biden-25, Trump-25, with Mitch McConnell having Susan Collins in his back pocket for at least six more years.  Right now, Democrats must win a Trump state Senate seat in 2022 or 2024 or else they will lose their majority in 2024, even if they win the White House & hold/pickup all 25 of the Biden seat states in those cycles.  Without that, McConnell will need to either win the White House or pickup an additional seat in one of the marginal states (like Arizona or Wisconsin) in the next few years to be able to have a shot at the majority come 2024.  It's not much of an advantage (particularly if a state like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin starts to drift further right without another state like North Carolina or Texas becoming more attainable for the Democrats), but it does give the Democrats a leg toward equity in a body they are currently greatly disadvantaged.  Puerto Rican statehood doesn't do quite the same (Puerto Rico would probably be blue at a presidential level similar to Colorado or New Hampshire, a true tossup similar to Wisconsin or Florida on a Senate level), so I'll save that discussion for a different day but suffice it to say if Puerto Rican statehood takes off it should be prioritized as well for ethical reasons (the territory wants statehood) & because it'd expand the number of states that Democrats can logically play in, but it doesn't seem to have the momentum right now that DC statehood does.

The last reason that they object is because there's no going back on this, which is why the Democrats need to strike now because this opportunity may not present itself for another decade.  Gerrymandering reform will mean those congressional districts stay the law for a decade-a full decade of the House being fair & giving the Democrats a considerably stronger advantage than they do compared to the current tight gerrymandering across a dozen or so states.  Once DC becomes a state, it's not going back-people might put up with not having rights or benefits, but once you give them those benefits, they won't allow them to be taken away (look at how hard it's been to overturn the ACA).  While other aspects of the current legislative reforms could be chipped away, these two things would dramatically alter (potentially forever) the way we look at federal elections law. And that's why while we may spar & barter in the next few weeks over this bill, these are the two things that we need to use as a barometer over whether or not this was a successful bill or not, not a shifting window where we're never actually happy.