Democratic leaders have been alarmed at the extent to which their party has neglected to do anything about partisan gerrymandering. They argue that this neglect could lead to significant electoral loss. Steve Israel, a prominent figure in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), spent four years advocating against partisan gerrymandering, urging party members to prioritize state legislatures. His warnings, echoed by fellow Democratic veterans Martin Frost and John Tanner, fell on mostly deaf ears. This neglect by the party’s leadership has raised alarm that the party is heading for an electoral disaster.
For decades, Frost and Tanner were responsible for representing their home states of Texas and Tennessee in congress. Importantly, they understood the long-term impact of redistricting. These experiences opened their eyes to what coolly calculated district lines mean for electoral outcomes. More often than not, these district lines are drawn to the disadvantage of Democratic candidates. Following the Republican takeover in 1994, Frost became the DCCC chairman. In doing so, he was able to keep Texas Democrats’ gains in the U.S. House pristine, expanding their advantage from 19-8 to 21-9. Yet, he mourned the fact that the party did not build on this wave.
Israel was quick to highlight the difference between Republican and Democratic approaches when it comes to handling redistricting. He pointed out that even though Republicans had laid out the groundwork for an overall strategy, Democrats were still playing defense and being reactive.
“No one else in the party cared about this or understood how important it was, for whatever reason,” – David Daley.
Israel’s experience within the DCCC taught a frustrating lesson. When he joined initially, though, he found that the battlefield for Democratic candidates was a lot smaller than expected.
“What shocked me when I first came into the DCCC was when I learned that the expansive battlefield that I thought I would have at my discretion was actually a pretty small map,” – Steve Israel.
Even with A-list candidates and robust fundraising, he wrote, success was still out of reach without equitable district lines.
“You can have the best recruit, the best candidate, the best fundraising. But if you have an uncompetitive district, there’s no path,” – Steve Israel.
Frost’s efforts to build bridges between white and Black Democrats in the legislature to draw advantageous districts highlight the nuances of redistricting. He sought to organize cross-racial coalitions that would create better, fairer representation for both Black and white constituents. Tanner’s choice to retire from Congress was due in large part to his disillusionment with the practice of partisan redistricting.
“Democracy? The people’s will? It doesn’t matter,” – John Tanner.
Tanner, for his part, was livid over colleagues on both sides who turned to gerrymandering tactics that flouted democratic principles. He described a culture where members were more focused on preserving their own districts than on fostering fair representation for constituents.
“Here? Ha! They’re drawing their own districts,” – John Tanner.
Though highly accomplished and hard-working, these three smart and innovative legislators found themselves, along with their fellow freshmen, somewhat snubbed by the Democratic leadership. The lack of urgency toward state legislatures has been especially frustrating to many in the party. Don Frost, to repeat his concerns above, for the party’s inability to put national topics ahead of a state level focus over a few decades’ time.
“White northern leaders don’t think of this the same way that white southern politicians think about it,” – Martin Frost.
He criticized what he saw as a disconnect between party leadership and the realities faced by constituents in different regions. His tireless advocacy for the need to focus on state legislatures all these years finally went unheeded.
The consequences of these oversights have only grown more acute. Israel was quick to point to Democrats 1.4 million vote advantage over Republicans in 2012. Yet they won only eight seats due to gerrymandering tactics that drew their opponents out of the most competitive districts.
“Look, we won 1.4 million more votes than they did in 2012 and we only picked up eight seats,” – Steve Israel.
At almost 27 percentage points, this is the leading reminder of just how essential redistricting is to electoral viability. Luckily, most top Democratic leaders, like Frost and Tanner, understand this truth. They are convinced that had the party fought fire with fire and adopted a much more Republican-strictly aggressive approach to redistricting that things could have been very different.
“If the Democrats had put the same type of emphasis on redistricting that the Republicans did, there might have been a different outcome. Could have been. Should have been. We’ll never know,” – David Daley.
As discussions surrounding redistricting continue to unfold within the party, the urgency expressed by these seasoned leaders underscores a growing consensus. Ignoring these challenges may lead to dire consequences in upcoming elections.