FROM THE EDITOR: Time to Embrace Ideas - Whatever Their Source
Forever Redistricting Wars are upon us -- journalism is key to helping us find a better way forward.
By Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Email Martin
Since the Supreme Court’s decision to “update” Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, concerns about the possibility of “endless redistricting wars” have been abuzz.
According to a CBS News story, four Southern states may act on the Court’s ruling in order to redistrict — Louisiana (which has already begun), Tennessee (U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn is calling for redistricting that would move the state from 8-1 in favor of Republicans to 9-0 in favor of Republicans), Mississippi (though time is not in its favor), and Alabama (which could also face a challenge with timing).
One’s reading of the LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS ET AL. ruling — and understanding of the motivations for those states now looking to redistrict — will hinge on whether one argues that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no longer necessary because the social conditions that brought it into law no longer exist, or have been mostly defeated; or whether conditions are such that Section 2 is necessary to protect the voting rights of Blacks — particularly in the South.
Time will be the judge of the Justice’s ruling, but rest assured that the endless redistricting wars are here for a while.
And that’s a problem.
The SCOTUS’ ruling isn’t setting off redistricting wars; rather, it is one more component available in the gerrymandering arsenal. And no one’s hands are clean on that front.
It is true, for example, that Donald Trump set off a blatant round of gerrymandering when he told Texas to get Republicans more congressional seats. But as my colleague Shaun Kenney has rightly pointed out, New York has recently engaged in its own redistricting mischief. Further, New England has nary a Republican representative, despite 40% of New Englanders voting Republican. Surely there is one Republican seat to be had in the cradle of the American Revolution.
Then there’s my beloved Tarheel State. In 2022, the state — which is decidedly purple — saw a Court-mandated map lead to 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans elected to Congress from North Carolina. At the time, it was deemed one of the fairest congressional maps in the nation.
A conservative shift on the state Supreme Court in 2023, and today North Carolina is one of the most extreme-gerrymandered states in the nation, according to the Brennan Center.
Gerrymandering is the nationalization of politics in its rawest form — and the U.S. Congress’ House of Representatives is the battleground.
How do we fix it?
Perhaps it is time to wrestle with a fundamental question — are congressional elections local, or national, races?
Originally, the House of Representatives were the only national offices elected by direct vote. Members of the U.S. Senate were elected by members of state legislatures until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
Members of the House were meant to be the voice of the people who elected them, not the mouthpieces of state legislatures. As Akhil Reed Amar put it eloquently in his book America’s Constitution when comparing the Congress under the articles of confederation to the Congress as outlined by Madison, “The old Congress consisted of states’ men; the new Congress would consist of statemen.”
As the redistricting battles grow more intense, and threaten to become “forever battles,” statesmen are going to give way not to the states’ men, but the mouthpieces for the national parties.
In Virginia, this is precisely what motivated the redistricting campaign. A national push to limit a bullying — and dangerously ignorant — president from creating a path for ongoing one-party rule in Washington.
It’s exactly the wrong way to deal with that problem. Indeed, the referenda will only harden resolves left and right while increasing distrust. And compromise, which is the groundwork of a functioning democratic government, is the victim.
Solving this dilemma will not be easy. Rest assured it will not be stopped, however, until we learn to interact with one another as humans and Americans first. Then, only much later, as members of political parties.
Based on my work the past five years covering local news and politics, we are losing that ability.
Reclaiming it means to learn anew to focus first on people’s ideas, and only secondarily on their ideology.
Journalists, I would argue, are well-positioned to help the citizenry see the ideas more than the ideology of candidates and politicians. Indeed, at this moment in time it may well be journalism’s most important job.
Here at the Advance, we talk about the practice of “multipartisan” journalism. Broadly defined, it means representing as many viewpoints in our stories and commentaries as we can muster.
Presenting these voices is not, however, a simple matter of offering contrary views. Indeed, “Point-Counterpoint” sections — popular on many opinion pages in the U.S. — are not an example of multipartisan journalism.
Point-Counterpoint rests upon opposing positions trying to win a debating contest.
Multipartisan journalism is listening to, understanding, and accurately reporting positions as those who defend them understand them.
More important, unlike Point-Counterpoint pieces, multipartisan journalism doesn’t ask the reader to choose a side, but rather to sit with the discomfort of hearing another’s story and experience, and then trying to find a path forward, together.
This — not forever redistricting struggles, or referenda on congressional districts, or rulings by SCOTUS — is how we begin to reverse the damage we now daily see being perpetuated on the nation, our state, and our neighbors.
It’s why journalism still matters.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Martin Davis is right to warn that “forever redistricting wars” are upon us and that we need journalism that helps us see ideas, not just ideology. His call for “multipartisan” reporting is exactly what communities like ours need to stay informed rather than simply inflamed.
But if the rules for voting and representation are now being written in an endless tug of war between national parties, that has a second implication. It is no longer enough for those of us in the Fredericksburg area to be well informed spectators, even by excellent reporting.
If gerrymandering is the nationalization of politics in its rawest form, then the battleground is not only the House of Representatives. It is the local party committee meeting as well as state elections, the school board race, the city council primary, and the neighborhood conversation where people decide whether to get involved at all.
Courts and nonpartisan organizations still matter, and so does the kind of journalism the Advance is trying to practice. But the rest of us have work to do. If we want fairer maps and better representation, we cannot just read about politics—we must step into it, together.
If people participate in consuming information that causes them discomfort sufficient to register disagreement, are they the problem if they do not actively work to remove the source of their comfort? If they do nothing, are they any different than whining, crying preschoolers?