Abstract
This insightful and provocative new book starts out with a surprisingly simple, but nonetheless important, question related to our understanding of American political development: what was redistricting like in the past? Although congressional redistricting generates a lot of academic and political interest in the modern era, almost nothing is known about how the practice worked throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. As Engstrom shows, this is unfortunate since redistricting practices have varied substantially throughout American history. Indeed, he does an excellent job filling in the gaps in our understanding of district design and how political elites used this strategy quite effectively to influence election outcomes and policy making at the same time.
In the first chapter of his book, Engstrom (p. 8) notes that, “Aside from a few initial forays by political historians, research on American electoral development has radically downplayed district design.” This is surprising, according to Engstrom, since politicians from earlier eras often acted as if gerrymandering was a crucial feature of their electoral or partisan strategies. He continues by mentioning that, “Redistricting roiled legislatures across the country, biased electoral outcomes, made and ruined political careers, and fundamentally shaped political control of the national government.” Accordingly, Engstrom makes a strong case for why historical gerrymandering deserves greater attention than it has previously been given.
As Engstrom notes, redistricting during the modern era is vastly different than in earlier periods in history, as a result of key Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s that now carefully regulate how district boundaries are to be redrawn. Prior to this time, there was surprisingly little oversight of the districting process. Unlike the decennial redistricting process of the contemporary era, states could determine both when and how they decided to redraw congressional district boundaries, which had profound implications for historical elections. Engstrom also suggests that [t]he consequences of highly partisan, and unpredictable, redistricting also extended to the career decisions of politicians. Because states drew such competitive districts, political careers were often cut short. Incumbent members of Congress faced a more variable redistricting schedule, and one that was more partisan when it happened. (p. 9)
One additional consequence of redistricting practices, according to Engstrom, is that it laid the foundation for the development of candidate-centered politics during the 20th century. As noted previously, redistricting was quite common throughout much of the 19th century. By the early 20th century, however, frequent and partisan redistricting became much more episodic. This allowed members of the House to focus more efforts on their political careers without having to worry about their district boundaries being redrawn at short notice. As a result of this change, careerism gradually took off in Congress and incumbent legislators began to focus more directly on activities that would ensure their reelection. In time, and with the gradual demise of party machines, congressional elections became substantially more candidate-centered than they had been in the past.
Engstrom’s argument and presentation is thoughtful and well-organized. He lays out his major points chronologically in the book starting with the early republic period up to 1840. He then focuses on the partisan era of politics from 1840–1900, while focusing on significant changes such as the 1842 legislation outlawing statewide House districts. From there, he moves to redistricting practices in the 20th century where elections were gradually becoming more candidate-centered in nature. He concludes with a general discussion about redistricting practices in the modern era and offers a provocative discussion about what elections might look like if we were to return to the redistricting norms of the 19th century.
On the whole, there is very little to disagree with concerning Engstrom’s argument, save for one minor point. His primary focus in the book is on the US House (for good reason), but this does lead one to overlook the important policy role played by the Senate, which is largely absent from the discussion. In light of the bicameral nature of the legislative process, the House is unable to pass legislation on its own without also considering the preferences of the upper chamber. This point notwithstanding, this excellent new book is highly recommended for anyone interested in American electoral and political development, partisan gerrymandering, and how political actors manipulate institutional structures for their own purposes. Engstrom consistently sets the bar high in his research and this book is clearly no exception.