Article by Robbie Soltz

Politicians of all backgrounds have used constitutionally (Article 1, Section 4) mandated redistricting to manipulate votes for about 300 years.  Redistricting is the process by which states set the boundaries of electoral districts for the US House of Representatives, state legislatures and local jurisdictions.  In the 60’s, the Supreme Court held that these districts had to have equal populations.  But boundaries are drawn on maps, people move around, and populations grow and shrink. So, to continue to keep geographical districts equal in population, boundaries need to be redrawn periodically. That period is specified – ten years.

Now comes the census, which is the heart of redistricting.  The census is the head count of all the people residing in the United States. It is conducted every 10 years, or more frequently depending on the state and collects data regarding age, race, housing and housing occupancy. What could go wrong?   

The issue is that the state party in control can easily apply race and/or partisan affiliation to certain geographic areas, redraw district boundaries (gerrymandering) and dilute or bolster the voting power of certain populations according to party recommendations. For example, imagine six districts arranged like a star, with one district in the middle. Now, suppose that each of the five points of the star predominately vote A, but the middle district is a solid B voting profile. You could easily see that by extending the boundaries of each of the points into the middle district, the voting power of the middle district would be dramatically diluted by incorporation.  This is “cracking.”  On the other hand, it is also easy to imagine drawing the boundaries of a scattering of B voting districts together to create a super B. This is called packing.  This sort of activity dramatically skews the voting profile of states in Congress due to the “winner-takes-all” strategy used by the electoral college.  

At one time, the Voting Rights Act (1965) prohibited racial discrimination in redistricting by prohibiting cracking in minority districts.  Now, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 2 of the Act, calling it an “unconditional racial gerrymander” even though it has been widely used for decades to protect minority voters from racial discrimination.  

When it comes right down to it, we do not need districts or the electoral college at all.  States have had access  to the technology to manage a national popular vote (aka “Every Vote Equal, One Person, One Vote”) for some time. In fact, five of our 46 Presidents came into office without winning the popular vote nationwide.  Maybe the ability to change the outcome of national elections is so compelling, politicians just cannot bring themselves to dump the vice. Replacing the current system with a national and state popular vote model may end up being more economical, more accurate, more friendly to the environment (and friendlier to the people  that  process ballots). It would also eliminate gerrymandering which cancels a voter’s ability to choose representation.

Co-published by Ellensburg Daily Record newspaper on May 23, 2026. Robbie Soltz is a retired University Instructor and a former State and National Executive Employee. She is currently President of the Kittitas County League of Women Voters and a Member of the Kittitas County Water Conservation Board. She relishes Water Resource Management, STEM education, her grandchildren, horses, cats and beloved husband Dave, as well as living in Northeastern Kittitas County, Washington.