PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) — The Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held the first of several hearings on congressional redistricting, where gerrymandering was a main topic of discussion.
A handful of redistricting and voting experts shared testimony to state leaders, who are gathering public input on congressional districts.
Related
Dr. Charles Blahous, senior research strategist George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said gerrymandering — the act of drawing districts to give a political party an advantage — is a problem that he said creates observable, adverse consequences.
“Gerrymandering reduces elected officials’ accountability to voters. It unfairly disadvantages some voters relative to others. It fosters political polarization and it results in governing decisions that diverge significantly from the median voter,” he explained.
His metric, the G-score, measures what’s known as compactness, essentially comparing the shape of a district to its size. A circle or square has a better score than an intricate shape that winds and twists.
The Pennsylvania Constitution mentions compactness specifically, though Blahous noted it’s just one metric, not a magic bullet.
Penn State associate geography professor Christopher Fowler agrees, adding it isn’t as simple as stamping out squares that end up purple. Especially in a place like Pennsylvania, where people settled along rivers and in valleys, and going over a mountain can bring a big change in views and political beliefs.
“Land doesn’t vote,” he said. “People do. Pennsylvania is heterogeneous with a mix of political preferences. Maps should reflect that.”
The public hearing was the first in a series to be held around Pennsylvania.
Congressional maps are redrawn every 10 years based on census data. Pennsylvania will lose a congressional seat this year as the rate of growth was slower than other states.