The best response to the Supreme Court’s Callais ruling: proportional representation

The day after the Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry issued an executive order purporting to halt the state’s House primaries so that the elections would be conducted in redrawn districts. Already, legislatures in several southern states have begun planning to dismantle districts that have protected voters of color from racial voting discrimination for generations.

This Video Is Trending Right Now →

Democratic-controlled state legislatures face a question: protect voters of color and their incumbent representatives, or maximize partisan advantage with more counter-strike gerrymanders of their own?

There’s actually a clear option for voting rights policy that would guard against racial discrimination while preserving the hard-won gains of the Voting Rights Act: proportional representation.

By amending the Uniform Congressional District Act, Congress could neutralize the gerrymandering arms race and restore equality of opportunity to our democratic process. We suggest amending the law to make three fundamental changes to how members of the House of Representatives are elected.

First, states with more than one seat should elect members of Congress using multi-seat districts. Second, states should use some form of list ballot structure, where voters choose either a single candidate (as happens now) or a “party list” vote (like the straight-ticket voting used in six states). Third, states should allocate seats to party lists using a fair allocation formula to ensure that votes have equal weight in determining representation.

Th is type of system minimizes the state’s role in selecting winners and losers. While any method of registering voter preferences requires some state administration, the current system of single-seat districts allows the government — not the voters — to determine the primary basis of representation.

Additionally, this approach would achieve better representation for voters of color. It would preserve the protections provided by the Section 2 framework of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), with additional benefits. Under a single-seat “first past the post” system, the state is forced to arbitrate competing claims for representation among various racial groups. By contrast, our proposal shifts this power to the citizens, allowing voters to identify and organize their own electoral communities.

Play

Under a list system, candidates running for office can choose to run together on a list, and seats are allocated to lists. This allows voters to pool their voting strength, such that every vote counts toward representation: Even if one’s top candidate fails to earn enough votes to be elected on their own, a vote still counts toward the list and the election of candidates from the voter’s preferred group of candidates. Moreover, the list system ensures minority representation. In a three-seat election, any list receiving 25% of voter support is guaranteed a seat.

List systems allow voters to exercise greater agency than does our single-seat, winner-take-all system. By grouping themselves on the basis of the identity that they find salient, voters determine which groups are entitled to representation. Voters of color are free to determine which aspects of their identity matter most to them. Under the Section 2 framework, voters of color are not entitled to representation as political minorities or based on their other identities even though the framework incentivizes a politics of racial-group identity.