The Census Bureau finally released its much-awaited 2020 redistricting data across the various states, thereby officially launching the redistricting process for the decade. State legislatures and commissions will use this information to draw boundaries representing constituents at the congressional and state legislative levels, with each district equally populated within-state. The process will be far from technocratic, however — legislators will have considerable ability to choose their voters and thus all but ensure their own reelections.
Where single parties dominate, the majority party will almost certainly attempt to hold onto power via gerrymanders, even when they fail to secure a majority of the statewide vote, as seen in states such as Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. While various ways exist to measure and quantify the impact of gerrymanders, political commentators and judges overwhelmingly rely on the oddity of shapes to single out gerrymanders for suspicion. The phrase “I know it when I see it” when judging obscenity can often be applied here — districts shaped like elongated reptilian creatures are probably not made with the purest intentions.
Does shape matter, though? Do oddly shaped and tortuous districts directly impair representation? The answer: Well, sort of. It is not so much that the shapes themselves impair representation, but rather the action of ignoring geographies of communication central to the constituent-representative link. Oddly shaped districts often suggest that legislatures have split up and violated these boundaries, ranging from counties to media market areas to ZIP codes.
