Skip to content
Subscribe

One Thing We Can All Agree On: Gerrymandering Sucks

Published:

Everybody hates gerrymandering. That’s the takeaway from a new poll that finds dramatic majorities of Americans in favor of limiting the ability of politicians and partisans to draw their own districts.

The survey – a bipartisan poll conducted by Democratic researcher Celinda Lake and Republican analyst Ashlee Rich Stephenson – found that 71 percent of Americans would like the Supreme Court to define a standard that ends extreme partisan gerrymandering.

This cuts across party lines: 80 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents, and 65 percent of Republicans would back action by the Court.

“It’s hard to find bipartisan consensus in America today,” Lake said, presenting the findings at a Washington media conference. “This issue has bipartisan consensus even among partisan voters.”

The Court will soon have it’s chance: Oral arguments in a partisan gerrymandering case from Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford, will be heard on October 3.

The Wisconsin maps, drawn by Republican legislators, created such GOP-friendly maps that the party won 60 of 99 State Assembly seats in 2012 even though Democrats won more total votes.

This poll, however, discovered that voters are turned off by partisan map-manipulation, even when it is to the benefit of their side. It found that 73 percent of voters wanted to remove all political bias from redistricting – regardless of whether it cost their party seats.

“Freely choosing their representatives is an issue of deep principle for voters of all political stripes,” said Stephenson, the Republican pollster.

Lake called this strong support “really surprising” since gerrymandering is a new issue for many people, and often considered esoteric or technical. But she and Stephenson suggested that voters see this as a core issue of electoral fairness, no matter their partisan allegiance.

Strong majorities – 75 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 61 percent of Republicans -- agreed that “we lose the guaranteed freedom to choose our own leaders when electoral maps are drawn to favor one political party.”

Gerry Hebert and Paul Smith, who will argue the case before the Supreme Court, said that they hope the Court will seriously consider this deep support among Americans for action while deliberating a first-ever constitutional standard to rein in excessive partisan gerrymandering.

“In a case as clear as this, we hope that the court will rise to the occasion,” Smith said, “thereby restoring democracy.”

The poll was conducted on behalf of the Campaign Legal Center, which is helping represent the Wisconsin voters who challenged the maps. The details from the survey can be found here.

Editor's note: This article, written by Dave Daley, originally published on FairVote's blog, and has been modified slightly for publication on IVN.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

One Thing We Can All Agree On: Gerrymandering Sucks

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us