Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Utah's initiative to end gerrymandering

Utah's initiative to end gerrymandering

"The Salt Lake City metro area has been split like a pizza between our four congressional districts so that the community's voting power is diluted," writes former Rep Karen Shepherd.

Utah Elections

Shepherd represented Utah in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 1995 as a Democrat.

First a personal story. Shortly after President Trump was elected, I attended a town hall meeting called by my congressman. It was held in the large auditorium of a Salt Lake City high school, and about 2,000 people attended. As a former member of Congress who had held many of my own town hall meetings before anxious and upset people, I was interested in watching how this meeting would be managed. I knew the audience was mostly made up of Democrats and the representative was a Republican. Most of his constituents did not live in the city and neither did he.

After an introduction by the district director, the congressman came forward to speak. His first words, after welcoming us and noting the huge size of the crowd, were to say he assumed people were there because they didn't agree with his stands on many issues. Then he pointed to a pie chart showing where in Utah he had won votes in the last election. "As you can see here," he said smiling, "it doesn't really matter what you think about me or these issues." He then pointedly noted his votes had come from elsewhere in the state – the mostly rural, much more conservative part of Utah.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

A solidly Democratic region in the middle of a mostly Republican state, the Salt Lake City metro area has been split like a pizza between our four congressional districts so that the community's voting power is diluted. As a result, unrepresented voters alternate between desperate attempts to overcome the system and total indifference to the political process. Meanwhile, voters in Republican areas, always sure their candidates will win all but the rare competitive races, often stay home. As gerrymandering has increased, Utah's voting record has declined. Democrats don't vote because they know their vote doesn't count and Republicans don't vote because they know their vote isn't needed.


Neither Democrats nor Republicans like what gerrymandering was doing to democracy in Utah, so we came together to form a bipartisan coalition, Better Boundaries, that successfully passed a redistricting reform ballot initiative last fall. Fortunately, the Utah Constitution enshrines the right of citizens to make laws directly without the approval of those who most benefit from gerrymandering.

It's important to be clear about the psychology of gerrymandering. It's not a partisan issue. Democrats are as fierce as Republicans about holding onto power when they have it. No one, absolutely no one, gives up power easily. That is why it took a whole initiative, two years and hundreds of thousands of people in Utah to insist that it be done.

People want their voices to count and to be heard. In gerrymandered districts neither can happen. People want their elected officials to listen and to be accountable. In gerrymandered districts, that does not happen. Good government relies on giving people pathways to their government so that they don't feel helpless, or indifferent, or angry. Gerrymandering seals off all those pathways.

Finding a fair and balanced way to draw district lines so elections are competitive and all are represented is critical to the health of our democracy. The Utah lesson, perhaps, is that if a fair and balanced solution to redistricting can win voters' approval here, it can be done anywhere.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less