Solving Dupicitous Gerrymandering according to ChatGPT

Last Post: 4 Days past May Day
Next Post: My response to ChatGPT reply on the History of Gerymandering

Donate to, Support or learn about the last lincoln republican. Click here: Weltyforcongress.com

FIRST LET ME BE CLEAR:

This is not the solution. Looking for a solution I asked ChatGPT the following question:

I am interested in finding a solution to future gerrymandering on a state-by-state basis. What particularly interests me is looking at some of the old policies in the 50 states that dealt with redistricting and rules that they had in place in the past to make sure that legislative districts were not strange shapes but held fairly true to existing lines, municipal lines, and county boundary lines. Can you give me some insights into how different states managed to keep gerrymandering from becoming excessive in the past that might be applied in the future by federal, state statute that would punish states by limiting resources for states that did not adhere to fair standards of redistricting?

As I post this I have only read the first paragraph. I will read this carefully the moment I have successfully posted the reply here.

What you’re reaching for actually has deep historical roots—both in older federal law and in state-level practices that, at times, did constrain gerrymandering more than today. The problem isn’t that we don’t know what “fair” districts look like; it’s that enforcement and incentives have weakened over time.

Let me walk you through (1) what worked in the past, (2) how specific states handled it, and (3) what kinds of future reforms—especially federal/state hybrid ideas like the one you’re proposing—could realistically draw from that history.

1. The U.S. already had stronger anti-gerrymandering rules (and lost them)

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress explicitly required districts to be:

Contiguous
Compact
Equal in population

Those rules were written into federal apportionment laws from 1842 through 1911 .

? The key turning point:

In 1929, Congress dropped those standards—and never replaced them with enforceable ones.

So historically, your instinct is correct:
There used to be a federal baseline for “normal-looking districts.”

2. Traditional state-level constraints that limited excess gerrymandering

Even today, many of these older principles survive in state constitutions or statutes:

A. Compactness (anti-weird shapes)
Required in 30+ states in some form
Intended to prevent “snake-like” districts

Limitation:
Compactness alone can be gamed—mathematically compact maps can still be partisan .

B. Respect for political boundaries (counties, cities)
About 34 states require consideration of county/municipal lines
Historically very important in rural states

Why this mattered historically:

It prevented slicing cities into pieces
It anchored districts in real communities

But:

After “one person, one vote,” strict county-based systems became unconstitutional if they distorted population equality
C. Contiguity (no disconnected districts)
Nearly universal requirement
Prevents “islands” of voters stitched together artificially
D. Communities of interest
Keep culturally or economically linked areas together
Often vague—but powerful if enforced
E. Stability / continuity
Some states historically tried to preserve prior district cores
This reduced extreme redraws every decade
3. States that actually did a better job (models worth studying)

Here are a few real-world approaches that worked better than average:

Iowa (the gold standard procedural model)
Maps drawn by a nonpartisan legislative agency
Strict rules:
No partisan data allowed
Strong emphasis on:
compactness
county boundaries
Legislature can reject—but not alter—maps

? Key insight:
Process matters more than criteria.

Arizona & California (independent commissions)
Remove legislators from direct control
Use ranked criteria:
Equal population
Voting Rights Act
Communities of interest
Compactness

? Key insight:
Who draws the map is as important as how.

North Carolina (judicial enforcement of county rules)
Courts have enforced limits on splitting counties
Created structured constraints on mapmakers

? Key insight:
Courts can enforce geographic integrity—if empowered.

New York (constitutional language—but weak enforcement)
Requires compactness and respect for boundaries
But courts historically defer to legislature

? Key insight:
Rules without enforcement don’t work.

4. Why those older systems broke down

Three big structural shifts:

1. Courts stepped back
The Supreme Court (2019) said partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable
Recent rulings have also weakened racial protections (2026 decision)
2. Technology improved
Modern mapping software allows precise voter targeting
3. Incentives hardened
Control of maps = control of legislatures for a decade
5. Your idea: federal penalties for unfair redistricting

This is interesting—and not crazy—but it runs into constitutional design issues.

A. What Congress can do

Under Article I:

Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections

So Congress can:

Set national redistricting standards
Require commissions
Define criteria (compactness, boundaries, etc.)
B. What’s harder: punishing states by withholding funds

Your idea resembles:

Federal highway funding conditions
Medicaid expansion incentives

This is legally possible if structured carefully, but:

Risks:
Must not be “coercive” (per Supreme Court doctrine)
Must relate to the program being funded

? Example:

Easier: tie compliance to election-related funding
Harder: broadly punish unrelated funding
6. What actually works (based on history)

If you combine the lessons, the most effective system would include:

1. Ranked criteria (with priority order)

Example:

Equal population
Voting Rights protections
County/municipal boundaries
Compactness
Communities of interest

? Priority matters because criteria conflict.

2. Independent or constrained map-drawing process
Iowa-style nonpartisan staff or
Independent commissions
3. Objective metrics (but not alone)
Compactness scores
County splits
Efficiency gap (vote-seat distortion)

? But: no single metric is sufficient.

4. Judicial enforceability
Clear standards courts can apply
Not vague language like “reasonable compactness”
5. Federal baseline (reviving pre-1929 ideas)

Congress could:

Reinstate:
compactness
contiguity
subdivision respect
Require transparency and public maps
6. Conditional incentives (your idea, refined)

Instead of punishment alone:

Offer election funding bonuses for compliance
Require compliance for:
federal election administration grants
redistricting support funds

This avoids constitutional overreach while still applying pressure.

7. A key insight you’re circling

The historical lesson is subtle but important:

Bad maps don’t happen because we lack rules.
They happen because rule-makers control the process and enforcement is weak.

That’s why:

Iowa works (process constraint)
New York struggles (rules without teeth)
If you want to go further

We could:

Compare 3–4 states in detail (Iowa vs California vs Texas)
Or
design a model federal law based on these principles
Or
explore mathematical redistricting (algorithmic maps) as a solution

Just tell me which direction you want to push.

NOTE: I will offer my thoughts on this comprehensive reply in the next post.

About the author

Harry is a ferociously good natured eccentric in Duluth Minnesota who detests traitors dressed up as Uncle Sam. You can find somewhat better edited writings of his at the Duluth Reader "contributors." page. The URL is:

https://duluthreader.com/contributors/h/84/284-harry-welty