Flipping Callais
Use jiu-jitsu to end gerrymandering
Here is Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) positioning herself in the wake of Louisiana v. Callais:
Her post and video are ambiguous. She opposes political gerrymandering, and she opposes the kind of racial gerrymandering that unfairly reduces minority representation, but it is not clear whether she opposes racial gerrymandering in general.
She writes — but does not say in the video — “We need to outlaw gerrymandering. Period.” That, plus her comments about Michigan’s redistricting commission, could be construed to mean that she opposes all gerrymandering. If that is what she means, then I agree. The experiences of Michigan and other states with independent commissions shows that this is the way to go.
SCOTUS has ruled racial gerrymandering unconstitutional, so, rather than trying to legislate racial gerrymandering back into law, a future Democratic majority in Congress should ban all gerrymandering and mandate that all states either set up independent commissions or come up with other ways to insure that the voters select their representatives, not vice versa.
There are better ways to increase diversity among representatives than racial gerrymandering. Here are two:
First, lift the 435-member cap on the House.
Second, make DC and Puerto Rico states.
A bit more about Michigan’s recent experience with redistricting:
Michigan is a moderately blue-leaning swing state, but for many years gerrymandering gave the GOP disproportionate majorities in the state legislature and the Michigan delegation to the US House. That ended after 2018, when a ballot initiative mandated the creation of the Michigan Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission (MICRC). The MICRC set up competitive districts (after some hiccups) and in 2022, the Democrats gained slim majorities in both houses of the state legislature and among Michigan’s US Representatives. In 2024, the GOP regained majorities in the state lower chamber and among Michigan’s US Representatives.
About those hiccups: the ballot initiative was unsuccessfully challenged in court by the GOP. The initial redistricting plan was also challenged, successfully, by African-American activists (Agee v. Benson).
The MICRC strove to create fair districts while also obeying the dictates of federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. But that wasn’t good enough for certain black politicians. Here’s the rub. There are two ways to reduce minority voting power: “packing” (concentrating minority voters into a few districts) and “cracking” (spreading minority voters over many districts). Both of these tactics harm minority voters, but “packing” benefits certain minority politicians whose jobs are more secure when their districts are packed.
I was dismayed by the court challenges. I have come to expect these sorts of procedural abuses from the GOP, but I was surprised that African-American Democrats would do this. The black politicians who wrapped themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement while challenging a major step forward in voters’ rights and systemic reform struck me as hypocrites and mediocrities. Under the old gerrymandered system in Michigan, their party was artificially kept out of power, which limited what they could effectively do for their constituents, but their particular seats were secure. Under the new system, they would have to run in competitive districts and appeal to more diverse constituents, but if they won, they had a fair chance of being part of a new legislative majority that could get things done. They did not rise to this challenge. They chose to play the race card and cry discrimination in order to keep their districts packed. The federal district court sided with them and ordered MICRC to redo the redistricting, which they did.
Another development: in 2024, the Democrats lost the state House, but hung on to the state Senate by two votes — but then one Democratic state senator resigned (Kristen McDonald Rivet, who had been elected to a 4-year term in 2022, left to run for the US House), raising the possibility that the GOP might take the vacant seat in a special election, which would tie the chamber. After putting it off as long as was feasible, Governor Gretchen Whitmer finally called for the special election this month, and the winner was Chedrick Greene, an African-American Democrat, by more than 20 points. In 2024 the district that Greene won had voted for Slotkin for US Senate and Trump for President. Greene’s victory shows that an African-American politician can win in a competitive mixed district.
I interpret the significance of Callais, and the reaction to it, against this background.
The Callais decision is yet another blatantly partisan decision by this SCOTUS, and while John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas have opposed the districting provisions of the Voting Rights Act for decades, the Court’s majority deliberately implemented this decision in a way that counteracts Democratic victories in the recent redistricting battle that Trump started. I question whether it is accurate or useful to frame this decision primarily in terms of identity politics — to say that Callais will bring back Jim Crow, either in its intent or its likely effects, is hyperbole. I see Callais instead as further evidence that the current SCOTUS majority serves oligarchic and autocratic interests, regardless of whatever rationale they claim, perhaps sincerely in their own minds, to have.
Rather than clinging to provisions that protect only certain groups from gerrymandering, legislators should harness the outrage generated by this decision to “outlaw gerrymandering. Period.” The moment calls for a kind of political jiu-jitsu: instead of meeting force with force and trying to resist the oligarchic attack on the Voting Rights Act head-on, let us redirect the force of this attack against itself and end all gerrymandering, including the partisan gerrymandering that SCOTUS has left to the political branches to deal with and which is vital to the oligarchic agenda.
Congress can end gerrymandering through the formally race-neutral means of requiring independent redistricting commissions in every state and by lifting the 435-member cap on the legislature. A expanded legislature would entail smaller districts, which would be harder to pack and crack would offer more opportunities for people from diverse communities to enter politics.
What is the alternative? I have voiced support for the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the past, but it now seems that SCOTUS could effectively nullify it in the way that it has nullified the VRA. Some have advocated expanding the court to overcome the current majority. I support this on broader grounds, but it will be controversial enough without tying it to racial gerrymandering. If expanding the court is seen as promoting an identity politics agenda rather than as a corrective to a broad range of abuses, it will delegitimize this reform and feed into backlash at a time when the country needs to come together.
To protect the voting rights of African-Americans and everybody else, Congress should strengthen and protect voting rights in the strict sense of access to the ballot — which the Trump and his kakistocrats are currently trying to curtail or subvert by any means they can get away with (e.g., the SAVE act).
The GOP relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression. Those who oppose the oligarchic agenda should strive to enact federal protections against both.
I’m talking about recent events here, so I base the above mostly on my memories of recent reporting. I used Ballotpedia to check some facts and fill in gaps. I accept responsibility for any errors and relevant omissions.
More about race:
Old-school integrationism
In “Bicentennial ruminations” #1, I proposed “Bicentennials” as a subdivision within Gen X, named for the bicentennial celebrations in 1976 and 1987, and I talked about my childhood exposure to patriotism. In this second installment of the series, I will reflect on some experiences that shaped my attitude toward race before I graduated from high school …