One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America

by Nick Seabrook

"Nicholas Seabrook, authority on constitutional and election law, and expert on gerrymandering, begins with the earliest gerrymandering (pronounced with a hard 'g'!) before our nation's founding with the rigging of American elections for partisan and political gain and the election-meddling of the colonial governor of North Carolina (George Burrington) in retaliation against his critics. The author writes of Patrick Henry, who used redistricting to settle an old score with political foe and fellow Founding Father, James Madison, almost preventing the Bill of Rights from happening and of Elbridge Gerry, the Massachusetts governor from whom the naming of gerrymander derives. Seabrook writes of the Supreme Court's 20th century battles to curtail gerrymandering, first with Felix Frankfurter, the court's most outspoken advocate of judicial restraint, who fought for decades to prevent the judiciary from involving itself in disputes over the drawing of districts, only to see his judicial legacy collapse before his eyes; and Byron White, professional football player turned Supreme Court Justice who tried, and failed, to convince his colleagues to put a stop to partisan gerrymandering before most Americans were even aware that it was happening . . . One Person, One Vote explores the rise of the most partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history put in place by the Republican Party after the 2010 Census. We see how the battle has shifted to the states with REDMAP, the GOP's successful strategy to use control of state government and rig the results of state legislative and congressional elections for an entire decade. Seabrook makes clear that a vast new redistricting is already here and to safeguard our republic, action is needed before it is too late"--

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Adult, American History, Audiobook, Political Science

385 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 14, 2022

Reviews

[Porter Broyles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of those niche books that if you are interested in election history and politics, but don't know too much about the subjects will enjoy.

It is well written and fun. It covers a lot of territory, it is a solid primer on the subject.

[Gretchen Hohmeyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are looking for a comprehensive speed run of the gerrymander throughout American history (even before it was America)--buckle up. You are going to get a lot, incredibly fast. I learned more, in particular, about the Supreme Court's cases regarding gerrymandering and voting rights than I think I expected, which was great considering that the current Court is considering another voting rights case in the next term. Unfortunately, especially since I listened to this on audiobook, that made it incredibly difficult to follow at times. Every chapter was a new gerrymandering episode, and Seabrook gives TONS of background on all the key players (of whom there are often many). By the time you think you've got all the names and the contexts straight, the chapter is over and it's time to start the whole process again. I was also befuddled by the book's tone at times; while it is clearly an intense historical study, Seabrook also spends way too much time on digressions that (I think) are meant to add levity to the otherwise dense text or makes little references to memes or pop culture that feel out of place. It does, however, have a very strong closing argument that makes it clear that Seabrook thinks passionately about this issue and how critical it is to the continuance of our democracy in America. I recommend for the interested (and Seabrook would argue we should all be interested) BUT I certainly would come prepared for the amount of information you're going to see at quite the clip.

[Britni · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really fascinating. I learned way more about gerrymandering and loved hearing the history and how it’s been used. Even though I personally really liked this book, I know many would find it boring. But if you are interested in elections, political history, this is a really informative read.

[William Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this thanks to Sharon McMahon of @SharonSaysSo, whose platform I feel is essential content for all Americans. Gerrymandering in the States is more frequently evoked these days but growing up I received the impression in school that the gerrymander was mostly a historic curiosity of its namesake’s era, the early days of the American republic. However, Seabrook makes it clear that not only was the eponymous gerrymander not the first of its kind, but that more and more sophisticated versions of it have been influencing American politics for the worse since that time. (Also, we pronounce the word “gerrymander” with a soft G while Elbridge Gerry’s name had a hard G—the more you know!)

My biggest takeaway from this is not that gerrymandering is a continual issue in the States (sadly, I am not surprised by this at all), but that both parties are equally apt to use it to preserve their own power, and that regardless of who is claiming what virtues or motivations in their efforts, at the end of the day, politicians are self-interested and meaningful change must come by taking more power into the hands of the people through independent commissions for electoral districts. This is not a perfect solution, and humans will never have one, but it is infinitely better than allowing elected officials to draw boundaries that favor than own reelection. Another big takeaway is that we are one of only two modern democracies that allow their legislators to set their own electoral districts. The other is France, and they’re on the fifth iteration of their republic (no shade to the French intended).

I think any American would benefit from reading this, and I give it 4 rather than a higher score for some unnecessarily dense passages that skew its audience more toward political junkies and career politicians than the average reader, who stands most to benefit from the analysis provided.

[Nathaniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written, well-researched, but incredibly dense. I learned a lot about the history and context of redistricting that I didn't know before; the parts about colonial-era proto-gerrymandering and the H.W. Bush DOJ's role in creating majority-minority districts in the 1990's in order to "pack" adjacent districts were both especially interesting. That said, it's not a light read and I doubt I'd want to read it a second time. The author's partisanship also, arguably, might compromise the effectiveness of the argument for some.

[Narissa]

DNF

I just have to liberate myself from this book. It does have some really interesting information, but you have to drudge through the equivalent of your obsessed with history father randomly telling you historical facts that only go together if you're inside of his brain.

[Carrie Jacobs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting to read the history of gerrymandering.

[Jarrod Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid read weaving the history of gerrymandering with solutions. Takes both sides to task and dives deep into the subject.

[Glenda Nelms · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and interesting book on the history of gerrymandering.

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook) This work looks at the long and winding (so to speak) history of Gerrymandering and the processes whereby politicians can pick their voters. It goes beyond Eldridge Gerry, for whom the process is named. Starting in England in the mid-1700, the process of drawing voting districts could be both a form of power enhancement and punitive measures against political figures and population groups. No one party owned the monopoly on the process, as Democrats and Republicans engaged in the efforts when it suited their political aims. However, with technology, it is getting more effective and precise to help a party stay in power, even well beyond what should make sense in the “one-person, one-vote” doctrine.

This work also savages the courts, who have been asked to weigh in on the process, and they have typically not offered the definitive solutions people might desire. They try to stay out of the process, or look for things to be so blatantly/overtly wrong before they act. One wonders what they will say with some of the recent cases slated for 2022-2023.

Overall, an informing, if not infuriating work. Democracy takes work, but it requires a degree of fairness that does not always square with fairness. The author has some hope for the future, but it is not always so optimistic. Worth the read, regardless of the format.

[Mike Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gerrymandering history is well-covered in this Seabrook study. Going back to Colonial history, through the Civil war "Honest Abe stacks the states" when states were created out of territories to help him win the 1864 election as the civil war and Lee were harassing Washington, to "Frankfurter's Political thicket" when the conservative Roosevelt appointee to the Supreme Court was in the minority in the Baker decision in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment, the book teaches much history as well as gerrymandering lessons. Court cases related to gerrymanders are covered in detail, including the most recent decision: Rucho vs Common Cause. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the remit of these courts. With federal courts’ power over redistricting curtailed, three divided state supreme courts in the past year jumped in to overrule GOP gerrymanders — in Ohio (with a total of 15 seats), Pennsylvania (17 seats) and North Carolina (14 seats). The court said that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles' does not mean that the solution lies with the ederal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." Whether or not the arch-conservative court will overturn former Justice Roberts Rucho decision remains to be seen.

Especially relevant in today's political environment, when Republicans have gerrymandered state legislatures to retain control, this book tells us that this is nothing new.

As of October 3, 2022, Republicans controlled 54.10% of all state legislative seats nationally, while Democrats held 44.32%. Republicans held a majority in 62 chambers, and Democrats held the majority in 36 chambers. Especially in the state senate, where Republicans control 32/50 chambers. Read this summary of how it happened https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid read, though not a lot new. (I did learn that New Mexico, where I grew up, did at-large House elections until the 1960s.)

It's probably, exactly, at 3.5 stars.

Seabrook looks at the orginal Gerrymander in early 1800s Massachusetts, then moves forward to the Ohio of the 1830s. At the same time, he dips backward and eastward to the pocket boroughs and rotten boroughs of the British Commons before the 1832 reform bill. He does this as part of showing that gerrymandering isn't uniquely American nor did it start with Gerry.

Couple of problems, though. That's not really "gerrymandering." Nor, before the Supreme Court's Baker ruling, are other cases of what Seabrook calls "malapportionment." Malapportionment might have served the functional equivalent of gerrymandering, but in many cases, it was more by dead weight of tradition than intent.

Seabrook is good at noting the difference between racial gerrymanders and others, between partisan and bipartisan incumbency protection gerrymanders and more.

He's best at noting the history of SCOTUS rulings and non-rulings on the issue, the warnings of the likes of Felix Frankfurter, and finally, the rise of non-partisan redistricting commissions, some of which are better than others. Even here, though, he has "interesting" digressions, such as the number of pages about Howard Jarvis, tangentially connected to California gerrymandering, but no more than that.

The prose is purplish at times, but it's not as bad as some 3-star reviewers say. And, it's often more witty than they give credit. It could have used better editing, and definitely more attention to modern computer generated redistricting maps used by both duopoly parties.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Underwhelming history of gerrymandering, with an unsurprising conclusion.

The author takes us over the history of gerrymandering since Revolutionary times. It's a bit overbroad, as some of the instances he cites aren't really gerrymandering. There is a lot of detail about backroom dealing, particularly involving New York's "three men in a room" system of government, familiar to me because I live in New York.

There are some important issues here that could have been treated better. For example, the author seems to fault the courts for their recognition of the "one person, one vote" principle, because, in his opinion, it led to the courts' failed attempts to reform gerrymandering. That's a pretty narrow view of an important democratic principle. He does recognize that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act unintentionally led to more gerrymandering due to the desire to create "majority minority" districts, making to easier to pack progressive and minority voters, who tend to vote for Democrats, into a few districts, opening up others for more Republicans. But his advocacy of more "at large" positions, at the expense of single member districts, doesn't account for the fact that "at large" bodies very rarely include members of racial minorities. Adoption of his position would reverse some of what was accomplished by the Voting Rights Act, at least before it was gutted by recent Supreme Court decisions.

To summarize - it's been going on forever, both parties are equally guilty of it and will never stop doing it, and the answer is to have districts determined by commissions that are independent of the two major political parties. Yes, I thought so. There wasn't a lot here that couldn't have been covered in a good magazine piece. The book is ok, nothing more.

[Karl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly readable account of the long, torturous history of partisan gerrymandering in America, beginning with its roots in the colonial era to modern computer-assisted redistricting plans. Nick Seabrook does a great job explaining how and why gerrymandering is carried out, and the many ways in which political skullduggery, closed-room deals, and political rhetoric combine to allow the perverse reality of the officeholders choosing their voters instead of the other way around. The book is also very funny, not just for clever turns of phrase (the reference to Lord of the Rings was particularly amusing) and a comparison of squabbling politicians to toddlers, but in the endless line of sarcastic names given to oddly-shaped legislative districts: "The Licking Water Whelp," "Abraham Lincoln riding a vacuum cleaner," "A contribution to modern art," and "a mechanical dinosaur with key attached". Alongside these, the original Gerrymander sounds rather tame indeed. More seriously, he carefully reviews court cases challenging (mostly unsuccessfully) gerrymandering plans and details case studies of particularly egregious redistricting plans that undermined democracy, good governance, or both.

I would recommend this to anyone interested in American political history, or for those concerned about an often overlooked aspect of modern politics. Ironically, while most Americans clearly oppose partisan gerrymandering (page 317-18), the practice is seemingly entrenched, protected by states' majority parties and court rulings.

[KaWoodtiereads · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only thing surprising about this history is that there is SO much of it! This is a very dense, in-depth dive into the historical practice of politicians trying to win power and control by any means necessary, including exploiting the Constitution itself. This book will show you how when politicians are in charge of drawing the boundary lines of their own districts, they will do some pretty shady shit. And that's across the field, both sides of the aisle. Proof it doesn't matter which political party holds the keys to the hen house, they are all foxes. I particularly chewed on the discourse around prison gerrymandering and how it's just another way the prison industrial complex disenfranchises marginalized communities. It also was very illuminating how our judiciary system has decided to basically adjust their blindfolds and let the legislature figure out their own problems, allowing the people to be without fair representation. What this history continues to show us is that our voices don't matter as much on Election Day as they matter in re-defining policy and holding representatives accountable to ensure independent, bipartisan control in re-districting. Do you know how your state determines voting districts? The people at the top, no matter what branch of government, are not interested in changing the rules when the game is fixed in their favor. It's up to the people, as usual, to make any real change happen. My sole complaint with this book is the author's lack of focus at times. We would be deep into a chapter when the author would spend 2-3 pages writing the biography of a person. I received an Advanced Reader's copy of this from the publisher, so I haven't seen it in its final form, but it definitely would benefit from footnotes.

[Nancy Gilreath · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read One Person, One Vote for an upcoming book discussion. I ended up quite discouraged as I learned how successful gerrymandering can so effectively disenfranchise groups of voters and predetermine outcomes. It was equally discouraging to realize that there is no easy remedy that can control gerrymandering. The federal courts have essentially removed themselves from considering political (versus racial) gerrymandering. The benefited politicians, who are by virtue of the practice in control, have no motivation to address it. It’s left to citizen initiatives that require impartial boards to create fairer voting districts.

I enjoyed the history of gerrymandering, particularly that prior to the mid-20th century. Some of the arguments and examples of more recent gerrymandering became a bit bogged down in details.

It’s clear that both major parties have used gerrymandering to their advantage when they can, and that the power of the party is to them more important than the democratic ideal of letting the people elect their representatives.

This was not a quick read, but I learned quite a bit.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Holy mixed metaphor, Batman! This is an extremely well-researched book about an important subject, held back by somewhat clumsy writing on a sentence-by-sentence level. It's not surprising that it's the first popular nonfiction book by an academic; there's a lot of passive voice as well as copious endnotes and a good bibliography and index. In short, it's a worthwhile book, but I found it a chore to read. Still, recommended for almost all mid-sized to larger public libraries, and the subject will be of interest to academically inclined teens as well as adults.

(An example of what I mean by mixed metaphors, see page 222: "Now presented with the opportunity to nip the modern gerrymander in the bud, before it spread its monstrous wings and sank its claws ever deeper into the raw underbelly of democracy, the justices balked." Well might they balk! Of course, Mr. Seabrook is referring to the crazy-quilt maps of gerrymandered districts that look like mythical beasts. But you don't nip mythical beasts in the bud!)

[William Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seabrook's work is timely and covers an important topic. Gerrymandering stems from one of the main reasons America isn’t working: a population of biased tribal warriors hooked on social media will eventually, inevitably, produce like-minded government officials. While there may be a lag, the more biased and tribal the populace, the more biased and tribal the government will be. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt explained, the American government and the American people are one and the same: “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and Senators and Congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.”

Gerrymandering is a quintessential example of how Americans cast aside their own constitutional principles and essential traditions in a zero-sum, two-party battle for political dominance.

William Cooper, author of How America Works … and Why It Doesn't.

[Gabby G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the most exciting book in the world (though I enjoyed the dry humor and nerdy excitement) but thorough in its explanations of gerrymandering. I went from someone who when asked about gerrymandering would say, "it's about borders and stuff" to now understanding it more than I did before. I'd try to give a better review but what more can you ask for?
The writing was entertaining, the stories were insightful and not always the most obvious, and it was a chunky read that was packed full of information. I never felt the need to skip a passage because it was meandering and not going anywhere. If you don't like books like that, I'd avoid this book but I appreciated how concise he was (despite the length of the book).

[Myc · Rating 3 out of 5]

One Person, No Vote suggests the history of gerrymandering in America is surprising, but it turns out that it’s not at all. It’s completely predictable and sad. It’s very well-researched, but Seabrook vacillates between veering into his academic training and writing in an engaging way but coming off as too cute. I suppose he’s trying to be accessible, but it comes off clumsily. For academics, it won’t have the feel they’re expecting, for popular readers, it will often feel boring.
An interesting, if infuriating subject that is presented in a little bit of a ham-fisted way. If you’re looking to be angry about American politics and are willing to give a well-researched but often tedious book a read, this is a good start.

[David Spencer · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only surprising thing about the history of gerrymandering is how an unenlightened citizenry tolerates such egregious manipulations of the popular vote by re-districting in our the electoral system. Seabrook introduces the gerrymander as “A Uniquely American Problem” because like so many things, we as a people express dislike for the practice, but unlike other established democracies, we haven’t taken effective steps to end it. As he says, “And if there’s one thing that I hope this book has made clear it’s that the politicians who benefit for this dysfunction cannot be trusted to fix it. We have the power, Only we can act to safeguard our democracy.” It’s a call to action. Will anyone answer?

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Picked this book up at a local bookstore after hearing the author speak about it there. A really engaging study of gerrymandering the in US over the last 250+ years. It was fascinating to see how each seeming solution to the gerrymander problem produced a new way to gerrymander. The ultimate point of the book is unsurprisingly that the foxes can't be trusted to guard the henhouse. The author ends on a hopeful note, indicating that there is a growing movement for truly independent redistricting commissions as the best and possible only solution to politicians picking their own voters rather than the other way around.

[Herb Neumann · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book. Who knew how many varieties of gerrymanders existed? Or that they have been in America, both red and blue states, not only before those terms came into vogue. but even before there was a US of A? The author not only categorizes gerrymanders, but gives extensive examples. Some of the histories cover decades, as they morph from one census to the next and as they reflect the parties in control of different legislative bodies in any one state. And yes, I knew that Elbridge Gerry's name was pronounced with a hard "G" despite the modern pronunciation of the "mander" named after him.

[Gregg Parker · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are parts of this book that are really interesting, particularly the history of the first gerrymanders in America and the personalities surrounding them. However, as the book enters the 20th century, it gets a little too into the weeds of the machinations surrounding gerrymanders without exploring the EFFECT of those gerrymanders. I understand in a philosophical sense why gerrymandering dilutes votes and leads to imbalanced representation, but to really drive this issue home, we need to hear about the policies that were enacted by legislatures that were elected based on gerrymandered maps. Unfortunately, this book doesn't do that.

[Daniel Farabaugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an engaging account of the history of gerrymandering in the US showing the many forms that it can take and attempts to undo it. It does a very good job of showing that this can take many forms but as information and computers have become more available it has only become more pernicious. It also highlighted the courts abdication of their responsibility in the light of this growing problem.

[Christian · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF - it was a strange experience reading this book, all of the information was interesting, but every time I considered reading it I felt like I would rather do anything else in the world. Perhaps I’ll try it again another time, but gerrymandering can be simply understood and this was a bit too dense and slow (interesting, but slow).

[Jenn Palomino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this. Goes into a history of gerrymandering but just to show how it’s been used by both parties since essentially the inception of the American government to gain and maintain power. Gerrymandering is one of those things that pisses me off if I think about it too much but I guess now I can be more educated about it as it pisses me off?

[Patrick Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t really remember this book. It had a great narrator, loved the structure of the book, full of great information, nonpartisan and well balanced. Would like to read it again when I am paying attention

[Tim Dugan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The information was actually very good

I didn’t find the conclusion encouraging

But Too much seemed off topic. And not of specific interest to me.

[Matt Busche · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very thorough book on the history of gerrymandering. The gist is politicians have always tried to choose their electors even though the vast majority of Americans don't approve of gerrymandering.