How the GOP used unfair maps to win a razor-thin majority

([link removed])

Many things propelled Donald Trump’s election victory. Inflation. A worldwide anti-incumbent backlash. Anger at institutions. A swing to the right among working-class voters of all racial backgrounds. And more. Analysts are still chewing on all the data (and Democrats are chewing on each other).

As we sift through the results and look forward, Republican control of the House of Representatives will matter greatly. That control is very, very narrow. And it turns out to rest on a shaky foundation of gerrymandering and manipulated maps, all encouraged by the Supreme Court.

The last time a new president took office with a “trifecta” of House and Senate control was 35 years ago. But this will be the slimmest House majority on record. With yesterday’s announcement by Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz that she will not participate in the Republican caucus, control may effectively come down to one vote.

And according to my colleague Michael Li in a new analysis, Republicans won a net 16-seat advantage due to manipulated maps drawn for party advantage. (Democrats garnered an edge in 7 seats through gerrymandering, but the GOP gained a total of 23 seats that way — hence, 16 seats.)

How did this skew happen? Simply, Republican legislators control the drawing of many more districts than Democrats do. In some states, nonpartisan commissions or state courts have actually produced fairer maps. But in most places, politicians are free to press for partisan advantage.

North Carolina is split relatively evenly between Republican and Democratic voters. This year, Trump won the state even as Democrat Josh Stein swept into the governor’s mansion. However, the heavily gerrymandered legislature drew congressional maps that produced 10 seats for Republicans and only 4 for Democrats. The state high court had blocked the gerrymander, a move upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper. But then a judicial election shifted partisan control of the North Carolina court, which abruptly blessed the gerrymander it had previously banned. That judicial reversal alone gave the GOP an extra 3 seats in Washington — enough to control the House.

Today Republicans are strutting, but that swagger may not last long. Speaker Mike Johnson will have to manage a fractious majority that could be defeated by one or two defections. Individual members will be empowered to extort policy concessions, no matter how extreme.

In fact, what may matter even more than the gerrymandered seats is the collapse of electoral competition. Only 27 districts nationwide saw margins of less than 5 percent. Lawmakers will look more nervously at the prospect of primary challenges than at the risk of alienating the broad mass of persuadable voters.

It did not have to be this way. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented the most egregious gerrymanders along racial lines. Then in 2019, John Roberts led the justices to rule that federal courts could not police partisan gerrymandering at all.

Congress has the power to act, and in 2022 it tried — coming within two Senate votes of passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which together would have barred gerrymandering for congressional seats nationwide. Both parties would have been forced to compete on a level field. (This legislation would also have undone other damage wrought by rulings such as Citizens United, which legalized the campaign system that saw Elon Musk spend a quarter of a billion dollars to help elect Trump.)

All this is a reminder that the rules of American politics, often arcane, often hidden, bear tremendous weight. It should caution us from drawing too many conclusions about any recent victor’s supposed “mandate.”

Voters are mad as hell about a government they feel does not deliver for them. Rigged rules are a big part of why Washington too frequently does not work. Partisans must do more than battle for inches of advantage. To truly reconnect the seats of power to a sullen electorate, real reform and real competition must be part of the answer.





A Historic Clemency Action

Last week, President Biden made history with the largest single-day clemency grant in modern times. He commuted the sentences of about 1,500 people who had been placed in home confinement during the pandemic and also pardoned dozens convicted of nonviolent crimes. “It’s a major step in the right direction and a recognition of the excessively punitive nature of our criminal justice system. But there are thousands of additional people who still deserve clemency,” Lauren-Brooke Eisen writes. Read more

([link removed])

What’s Left on Biden’s Agenda

Clemency isn’t the only move that President Biden should consider in his final weeks in office. He should also release secret Justice Department memos on the domestic use of U.S. armed forces. Making these legal analyses public would expose how extreme Donald Trump’s plans to use the military for enforcing immigration law or suppressing protests could be. By doing so, Michael Waldman argues in the New York Times, “Biden can make it harder for his successor to overwhelm the rule of law.” Read more

([link removed])

Introducing the Brennan Center’s Newest Board Members

The Brennan Center is pleased to announce that former associate attorney general Vanita Gupta and business executive and philanthropist Steven Kersten have joined its board of directors. With their diverse experience in both public service and the private sector, they bring invaluable expertise to the center. As we face critical challenges and opportunities for American democracy, their leadership will be crucial in advancing our work and ensuring our continued impact. Read more

([link removed])

News

Elizabeth Goitein on how the incoming administration could use emergency powers // TEXAS PUBLIC RADIO

([link removed])

Faiza Patel on coming changes at the FBI // LOS ANGELES TIMES

([link removed])

Ian Vandewalker on Democratic campaign fundraising in 2024 // AMERICAN PROSPECT

([link removed])

Daniel Weiner on Trump’s plans to punish his political opponents // FINANCIAL TIMES

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]







([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])