Gerrymandering the US States?

[lpetrich]

Although Congressional districts have often been gerrymandered, it seems much more difficult to gerrymander the states. It's much harder to move their boundaries around. Referring to The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

In other words, to rearrange states' territory, one needs the consent of the US Congress and every state whose territory will be rearrangement.

That seems to make gerrymandering the states very close to impossible. But does it? States can be gerrymandered when they are created, when the Constitution's strictures on state rearrangement do not apply.

When Adding New States Helped the Republicans - The Atlantic

Putting new stars on the U.S. flag has always been political. But D.C. statehood is a modest partisan ploy compared with the mass admission of underpopulated western territories—which boosts the GOP even 130 years later.

The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states.

In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming—the largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later.

North Dakota and South Dakota? The Dakota Territory was split into those two states to give the Republican Party some additional Senators.

Republicans did not hide their intentions. In the popular Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, President Harrison’s son crowed that the Republicans would win all the new states and gain eight more senators, while the states’ new electors meant that Cleveland’s New York would no longer dominate the Electoral College. When the Republicans’ popularity continued to fall nationally, in 1890 Congress added Wyoming and Idaho—whose populations in 1880 were fewer than 21,000 and 33,000 respectively—organizing them so quickly that they bypassed normal procedures and permitted volunteers instead of elected delegates to write Idaho’s constitution.

 

[lpetrich]

For a more complete picture, see  List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union

The original thirteen colonies became the first thirteen states over 1787-1790: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island. They were quickly followed by two more states, Vermont, Kentucky, and the pace of admission then slowed down. After three more states, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, there was a burst of admissions, with four states over 1816 - 1819: Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama.

By 1820, slavery had become a very contentious issue. Not that it was not a contentious issue earlier, with 3/5 of "other Persons" being counted for finding how many House seats per state. Southerners wanted 1, northerners wanted 0, and the two sides split the difference. But by 1820, it had become contentious enough for the politicians to agree to admit states in pairs, one free and one slave. The first two admitted in this fashion were admitted soon after, Maine, Missouri, Maine being split off from Massachsetts as a free state, Missouri as a slave state.

Over 1836-37, Arkansas, Michigan were admitted in this paired fashion, and then in 1846 - 1848, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, two slave, two free. So far, the US expanded westward from its original states on the Atlantic coast, but in 1850, the US took a big jump to the Pacific coast with California. Then the issue of whether the Kansas Territory should be admitted as a free state or a slave state. Supporters of both positions went to that state and physically fought each other: "Bleeding Kansas".

Then over 1858 - 1861, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas were admitted. The Missouri Compromise was breaking down, with the politicians of the Southern states becoming very sore losers. They seceded, provoking the Civil War, and the western counties of Virginia broke away in the middle of that war, forming West Virginia, A year later, Nevada was admitted, and a few years after that war, Nebraska was admitted, and a decade later, Colorado.

Over a decade after that, four states over two weeks in 1889, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington. Then over a week a year later, Idaho, Wyoming. Admission slowed down, with Utah, Oklahoma being admitted over two decades. Then over a little more than a month in 1912, New Mexico, Arizona.

The contiguous United States was now filled out, with the exception of the District of Columbia.

Nearly half a century later, in 1959, Alaska, Hawaii were admitted.

The US has now gone 64 years without the admission of a new state.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some comments about "Gerrymandering the US States."

First, the party labels "Republican" and "Democratic" are misleading when applied across the centuries. The Republicans were founded as an anti-slavery party, but racism is now the GOPs unifying value. And the ancient Ds appealed to rural populism, much as the Rs do today.

Second, the small states do not account for much "unfair" GOP power in the Senate or Electoral College. There are 12 states with two Senators despite getting only 3 or 4 electoral votes. These 12 states split 6-6 in the recent Biden-Trump election. When DC is included the 7-6 split favors the Ds. Among polities with 5 or fewer EVs, Biden won the EVs 30-29.

States with between 5 and 14 EVs split 13-15 for Biden-Trump (5: 1-2, 6: 1-5, 7: 2-1, 8: 0-2, 9: 1-2, 10: 3-1 11: 2-2, 12: 1-0, 13: 1-0, 14:1-0). With that arbitrary cut-off, Biden won the EVs of the small and medium states 150-132. (Maine and Nebraska split their EVs peculiarly, but these states canceled each other in 2020.)

The main reason that the Electoral College currently favors the GOP is "wasted votes."

Tennessee is a VERY red state. 708k Tennessee Trump voters could have stayed home and Trump would still have won all the Tennessee EVs. The GOP also wasted 531k votes in Texas, 591k in Alabama, and 516k in Oklahoma. These were the only states where the GOP "wasted" more than half a million votes. Compare this with the Dems who wasted 725k votes in New Jersey, 784k in Washington, 1.008 million in Maryland, 1.025 million in Illinois, 1.215 million in Massachusetts, 1.992 million in New York and a whopping 5.104 million in California.

 

[lpetrich]

Only a day after this event,
Justice Janet Protasiewicz is sworn in, giving liberals control of Wisconsin Supreme Court | Wisconsin Public Radio
this event:
Wisconsin lawsuit asks new liberal-controlled Supreme Court to toss Republican-drawn congressional maps | PBS NewsHour

A lawsuit filed Wednesday asks Wisconsin’s newly liberal-controlled state Supreme Court to throw out Republican-drawn legislative maps as unconstitutional, the latest legal challenge of many nationwide that could upset political boundary lines before the 2024 election.

...
The lawsuit asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election that year in newly drawn districts. In Senate districts that are midway through a four-year term in 2024, there would be a special election with the winner serving two years. Then the regular four-year cycle would resume again in 2026.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said Democrats were “counting on judicial fiat to help them gain power.” He accused them of “coming to collect” from the newly elected liberal Supreme Court justice.

 

[Politesse]

The history of new state admission speaks for itself in this regard, if you've done any reading on the subject it's clear that the status of the parties and their right to manipulate geography to maintain power has been tied one way or another to every single bid for state creation that ever came before our Congress. And I would argue that remains the case more or less. I mean, the very strongly held opinions that Republicans have toward accepting Puerto Rico and DC as states are pretty openly and brazenly about not wanting to add new Democratic voting regions, and those are the only two serious contenders for statehood at present. You can bet your boots that if one or the other of those states were admitted, they would be demanding some sort of concession state to balance out the inherent unfairness of democracy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The history of new state admission speaks for itself in this regard, if you've done any reading on the subject it's clear that the status of the parties and their right to manipulate geography to maintain power has been tied one way or another to every single bid for state creation that ever came before our Congress. And I would argue that remains the case more or less. I mean, the very strongly held opinions that Republicans have toward accepting Puerto Rico and DC as states are pretty openly and brazenly about not wanting to add new Democratic voting regions, and those are the only two serious contenders for statehood at present. You can bet your boots that if one or the other of those states were admitted, they would be demanding some sort of concession state to balance out the inherent unfairness of democracy.

Split each Dakota in half? That makes sense, yes?

 

[Politesse]

The history of new state admission speaks for itself in this regard, if you've done any reading on the subject it's clear that the status of the parties and their right to manipulate geography to maintain power has been tied one way or another to every single bid for state creation that ever came before our Congress. And I would argue that remains the case more or less. I mean, the very strongly held opinions that Republicans have toward accepting Puerto Rico and DC as states are pretty openly and brazenly about not wanting to add new Democratic voting regions, and those are the only two serious contenders for statehood at present. You can bet your boots that if one or the other of those states were admitted, they would be demanding some sort of concession state to balance out the inherent unfairness of democracy.

Split each Dakota in half? That makes sense, yes?

On my money? It would be one of the already sitting proposals for new "rural states" in the western rangelands-- Jefferson, East Washington, or Greater Idaho.

Mind, I don't think we're actually getting any new states. This decaying empire of ours is long past its expansion years.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, people have forgotten it was southern Democrats that were the Jim Crow racists, not Republicans.

That Lyndon Johnson eventually signed major civil rights legislation was remarkable.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Southern Democrats are affiliates of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States.[1] Most of them voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by holding the longest filibuster in American Senate history while Democrats in non-Southern states supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[2] After 1994 the Republicans typically won most elections in the South.[3]

Before the American Civil War, Southern Democrats were mostly White men living in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 19th century, they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the Western United States against the Free Soil opposition in the Northern United States. The United States presidential election of 1860 formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party. Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery, was the Republican Party candidate.[4] After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s so-called redeemers controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised Blacks. The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to the Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts and a few heavily German-American counties of Texas.

I always wondered where the Idaho and Texas panhadles came from.

I don't think that formation of the states during the westward 19th century expansion was anything but political and economic interests is not breaking news.

As theUSA took posse ion of land west of the original boundaries it was territories open to colonizatiom. Oklahoma Terrtory, Oregon Territory.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, people have forgotten it was southern Democrats that were the Jim Crow racists, not Republicans.

Who forgets that?

Though, racism has certainly never been the exclusive province of either party. Lincoln and his Republicans were not fighting for racial equity, only the end of the intolerable institution of slavery. Modern Republicans and no small number of Democrats tend to agree with Lincoln and co: Slavery is a moral evil (intolerable unless it happens in a prison or in another country where you don't have to hear about it), but racial equity is an unnecessary pipe dream that just exists to take rights away from whites in the misguided sense of fairness. There was a time when things were better, but the heyday of Reconstruction ethos Republican politics has come and gone - we have marched resolutely back to 19th century ideals.

 

[steve_bank]

Are you making apologies for democrats?

Of course not all democrats were racist, but the spectrim shifed. Denocrats today and since the 70-80s are more in line with where republicans used to be.

I spent time circa 1970 in Tenn, Florida, and Virginia when I was in the military.

I saw explicit racism up front and close.

I was going to a Navy school outside of Memphis. I got on a Memphis bus in my white summer uniform and took a seat next to a black person without thinking about it. The bus driver stood up glared at me ad made some angry comments. He sat down and we drove on. At that time I was ignorant of Rosa Parks.

I saw whites only signs at bathrooms and water fountains. I walked through share cropper areas around the base.

I took a lot of pictures but lost them.

There was a lot of southerners in military. We had a race riot on the base.

It is not controversial that te Jim Crow south was mostly about white southern democrats.

Lyndon Johnson was a racist a man of his time. He singed the civil rights bills mostly because he had no political options.

JFK is another story. As I recall he would not have Smmy Davis Jr at the white house because he had a white wife. JFK was pressured in the campaign to support MLK. He did not want to do it.

 

[Politesse]

Are you making apologies for democrats?

No. Read better.

Are you a Republican?

 

[Elixir]

Read better.

Maybe a new lexicon is called for. If we identify them by their actual inclinations rather than vague terms like "Republican", their handles can travel with them when they switch ideologies with the other party.
How about The Racist Nationalist Party vs the Wishful Thinkers Party?

 

[Politesse]

Read better.

Maybe a new lexicon is called for. If we identify them by their actual inclinations rather than vague terms like "Republican", their handles can travel with them when they switch ideologies with the other party.
How about The Racist Nationalist Party vs the Wishful Thinkers Party?

Democrats definitely have a history of racist policies. So do Republicans. They are both, and always have been, steered almost entirely at the national level by a small family cluster of wealthy white "benefactors" who don't want to lose power. The differences in strategy over the decades are just that: differences in strategy to achieve the same fundamental political goals. Often, just differences of aesthetic. 'House the homeless in Projects on the other side of town' is a much better and kinder plan than 'House the homeless in the prison system', but the end goal is the same as far as the party leadership is concerned. There's a reason they called the famous shift in Republican public priorities a "campaign strategy", not a "revolution". Becuase that's all it really was: a new strategy to improve their image in the Southern states by openly dogwhistling certain "values" that the Democrats were becoming increasingly embarrassed to be the champions of.

 

[Elixir]

Read better.

Maybe a new lexicon is called for. If we identify them by their actual inclinations rather than vague terms like "Republican", their handles can travel with them when they switch ideologies with the other party.
How about The Racist Nationalist Party vs the Wishful Thinkers Party?

Democrats definitely have a history of racist policies. So do Republicans. They are both, and always have been, steered almost entirely at the national level by a small family cluster of wealthy white "benefactors" who don't want to lose power. The differences in strategy over the decades are just that: differences in strategy to achieve the same fundamental political goals. Often, just differences of aesthetic. 'House the homeless in Projects on the other side of town' is a much better and kinder plan than 'House the homeless in the prison system', but the end goal is the same as far as the party leadership is concerned. There's a reason they called the famous shift in Republican public priorities a "campaign strategy", not a "revolution". Becuase that's all it really was: a new strategy to improve their image in the Southern states by openly dogwhistling certain "values" that the Democrats were becoming increasingly embarrassed to be the champions of.

That is very generally true of the past. I don't think it applies in the same way at this moment.
There seems to be a fractured opinion among The Blessed Billionaires of America as to whether to kill the golden goose (take over the government and initiate an era of overt kleptocracy) or to allow the continued appearance of participatory government in the hope that they can wring the answer to their dreams of ultimate wealth and power out of the system into perpetuity.
I am not actually so cynical as to believe that any cabal has anything more than illusory "power" over eventual outcomes involving large populations.

 

[steve_bank]

My motto 'Neither a republucan nor a democrat be'

Prgressuibes accuse republicans of denying the truth of slavery and Jim Crow and wanting to suppress the taeching in public schools.

If our current progressives want to teach the truth abou it, then teach all of it.

Sorry for the derail, but an important current issue.

Me: Democrats pre civil rights were responsible for most of the Jim Crow racism in the sou.
Politesse: 'Though, racism has certainly never been the exclusive province of either party'

My point was Swami was correct.