FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The number of competitive districts for the House of Representatives in the upcoming US midterm elections was already near historic lows, before the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday paved the way for even more aggressive efforts to draw electoral boundaries for political gain.
The court's decision, made at a time when the country is experiencing an unprecedented standoff over the redrawing of congressional districts, could usher in a new era of open partisan gerrymandering, resulting in even fewer competitive elections, leaving voters with less influence than ever before, according to experts.
The lack of competitive races means control of the House of Representatives is likely to be determined in the November election by fewer than 10% of Americans, while winners in the vast majority of districts are virtually certain before a single vote is cast, according to a Reuters analysis.
Only 32 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are currently considered competitive. These districts are classified as open or leaning either Democratic or Republican by three major independent forecasters: the Cook Political Report, the University of Virginia's Crystal Ball and Inside Elections.
Most other districts are out of the running. For example, Cook classifies 375 seats, more than 85% of the House, as “safe Republican” or “safe Democratic,” meaning no real contest is expected. Another 28 races are considered “possible” for one party, meaning they are not currently competitive but could become so under new conditions.
This year marks the lowest number of competitive races at this stage of the election cycle since at least 2008, according to Cook's estimates archives.
Democrats need to win just three seats to take a majority in the House, which would give them the ability to block President Donald Trump's legislative agenda and launch investigations into his administration.
The narrowing of the electoral field is the result of several factors, including growing political polarization. However, the use of gerrymandering, which has intensified since last year, when Trump pressured Republicans to draw new boundaries, remains a key element and is expected to accelerate after the Supreme Court decision, according to experts.
“We are now in a cycle of gerrymandering war,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, adding “what was once a cold war has now become very hot.”
The court has weakened a provision of the Voting Rights Act that prevented state legislatures from dismantling districts with a majority of racial minority voters. Political observers expect Republican-led states to target a dozen or more Democratic-held seats, mostly black or Latino voters, that previously had stronger protections.
“I think the situation is going to get worse before it gets better,” Levitt said, adding, “and there’s still a lot of room for it to get worse.”
“No limits”
The lack of competitive districts has consequences for the functioning of Congress, said Matthew Klein, a House analyst at Cook. If candidates need only the support of their base to win elections, and not moderate or opposing party voters, they are more likely to shift toward extreme positions.
“If you look at Congress 20 or 30 years ago, it was less confrontational and more productive,” he said. According to Klein, there were times when important laws passed with large majorities. That almost never happens today.
Gerrymandering has long been a part of American democracy, but in recent years it has escalated significantly as legal and institutional constraints have weakened. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that, while partisan gerrymandering may be undemocratic, federal courts have no role in regulating it.
Last year, Trump pressured Republicans in Texas to redraw the electoral map and target five Democratic incumbents, prompting similar contests in nearly a dozen other states. The move broke a traditional norm that had limited redistricting to the beginning of each decade, following the census.
The Supreme Court's latest ruling gives lawmakers even more leeway to draw districts in favor of their party. These developments also come at a time of technological advances, where district planners can identify Democratic and Republican voters down to the registration block level.
“If there are no constraints, then there are no constraints,” Levitt said. “The constraint now is just realpolitik and imagination, no longer the idea that ‘we don’t do this.’”
However, gerrymandering is not the only factor. Voters have become more geographically divided: rural areas have become more conservative, while urban suburbs have shifted to the left.
Voters have also become more polarized. Split voting – when a voter chooses candidates from different parties for different offices – was once common, but is now significantly rarer.
In 2000, there were 86 House members representing districts that voted for the opposing party's presidential candidate. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 16. /Adapted from Reuters /
Lini një Përgjigje