Historical Investigation - Government
The Gerrymander
Unit: Legislative Branches (National, State and Local)
High School American Government
“The Impact of the Gerrymander on American Citizens”
Maryland State Curriculum for United States Government
3.1.1
The student will evaluate demographic factors related to political participation, public policy and
government policies
Assessment Limits:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Political causes and effects of reapportionment, redistricting and voting patterns. Influence of
demographic factors on government funding decisions
Evaluate the impact of changing population size on representation in legislative bodies as
determined by the United States Census
Explain the reasons for reapportionment and its impact on fiscal decisions and representation
Determine the influence demographic factors, such as race, age, education, ethnicity and
gender have on voting patterns
Determine the impact of reapportionment and redistricting on individuals, groups, local
communities and regions
Determine the impact of gerrymandering on groups, communities and the legislative bodies
involved
Analyze how demographic characteristics of constituents affect the election of representatives
and the policy decisions they make
C3 Frameworks:
CIVICS
D2.Civ.13.9-12.
Evaluate public policies in terms of intended and unintended outcomes and related
consequences.
EVALUATING SOURCES AND USING EVIDENCE
D3.1.9-12.
Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views, while
using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide
the selection.
D3.4. 9-12.
Refine claims and counterclaims attending to precision, significance, and knowledge conveyed
through the claim while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both.
Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies:
Reading
RH.9-10.1
RH.9-10.2
RH.9-10.7
RH.9-10.8
RH.9-10.9
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to
such features as the date and origin of the information.
Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate
summary of how key ideas develop over the course of the text.
Integrate qualitative or technical analysis with qualitative analysis in print or digital text.
Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence support the author’s claims.
Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources
Writing
WHST.9-10.1
WHST.9-10.7
WHST.9-10.8
WHST.9-10.9
Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self
generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate;
synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under
investigation.
Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced
searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question;
integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism
and following a standard format for citation.
Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis reflection, and research.
Unit: HSA Government - Apportionment and Redistricting
I.
Engage the Students
Provide the students with the following background information:
Apportionment is the process of dividing the seats in the House of Representatives among the 50 states based on the
population figures collected during the decennial census. The number of seats in the House has grown with the country.
Congress sets the number in law and increased the number to 435 in 1913. The Constitution set the number of
representatives at 65 from 1787 until the first Census of 1790, when it was increased to 105 members.
The Census Bureau must prepare the final, official state population counts to determine each state’s representation in
the U.S. House of Representatives. This report shows the population of each state and the number of representatives
apportioned to each state. States with the larger populations will have more representatives. A change a state’s
population could affect the number of representatives for that state. Then the redistricting process begins by which
state legislators or officials draw the lines for congressional districts within a state.
Redistricting is intended to be a way of ensuring that each individual’s vote counts. If all districts have roughly the same
number of people in them and are drawn to respect natural communities -- neighborhoods where people share a
heritage, work in the same industry, or just generally feel tied to their neighbors -- voters have a chance to be
represented by politicians who represent their areas' collective interests.
But often the reality is quite different, as the redistricting process can create situations where the interests of voters are
not necessarily supported.
Announce to the students that today, they will conduct an investigation centered on this compelling question:
How does gerrymandering affect the choices and lives of American citizens?
Peruse and discuss Document 1 with the students:
Political cartoonists, like political writers, have a point to make. Have students identify and note details. What do you
notice first? · Find something small but interesting. What do you notice that you can’t explain? What point is the
cartoonist trying to make? What techniques, such as symbols, words, caricature, exaggeration, and irony, communicate
the message? Where do you think this came from? Why do you think somebody made this? · What do you think was
happening when this was made? Who do you think was the audience for this item?
II. Conduct the Investigation



Teachers and/or students collect relevant and sometimes conflicting primary sources that provide intrigue.
Students do an initial read and analysis individually and prepare notes and evidence for discussions in small
groups.
The following questions can be used:
Sourcing

What is the text?

Who created it and when?
Close Reading and Asking Supporting Questions

What does the text say explicitly?

What claim does the author/creator make?

What evidence does the author/creator make?

What is the author’s/creator’s perspective?

What is its purpose?

Does this text seem credible? Why or why not?
Contextualizing

What else was going on at the historic time this source was created?

What else was going on during this time (historic setting)?

How did the historic setting influence the creation of the text?
Corroborating

Where do the multiple texts agree and disagree?

Which texts are more reliable?

Which are the best texts for answering the compelling question?
Students should individually generate interpretations of the documents based on the compelling question.
Teacher and or students may construct supporting questions.
III.


DISCUSSIONS
Students will work together in small groups and share their interpretations of the compelling question citing
documents as evidence. Supportive questions may be addressed at this time.
Multiple interpretations can emerge and may or may not be accepted by all.
IV. REPORT FINDINGS
Formulate an argument/opinion that answers the compelling question citing evidence from the sources:
When you write an opinion piece/argument, remember:




Reasoning used in building an argument should be logical and clear.
Arguments should have a beginning, middle, and end; beginning with author’s claim.
Cite evidence from multiple sources.
Some arguments can include an opposing or alternative opinion (elementary students will need support to
identify this element).
Historical Investigation Resource Sheet
DIRECTIONS: As you analyze the primary source documents in your packet, complete the organizer below.
COMPELLING QUESTION: How does gerrymandering affect the choices and lives of American citizens?
Close Reading and Asking Supporting
Sourcing
Contextualizing
Questions
 What is the text?
 What else was going on at the
historic time this source was
 Who created it and when?
 What does the text say explicitly?
created?
 What claim does the author/creator
 What else was going on during
make?
this time (historic setting)?
 What evidence does the

How did the historic setting
author/creator make?
influence the creation of the
 What is the author’s/creator’s
text?
perspective?
 What is its purpose?
 Does this text seem credible? Why or
why not?
Corroborating



Where do the multiple texts
agree and disagree?
Which texts are more reliable?
Which are the best texts for
answering the compelling
question?
Sourcing


What is the text?
Who created it and when?
Historical Investigation Resource Sheet (cont’d)
Close Reading and Asking Supporting
Contextualizing
Questions
 What else was going on at the
historic time this source was
 What does the text say explicitly?
created?
 What claim does the author/creator
 What else was going on during
make?
this time (historic setting)?
 What evidence does the
 How did the historic setting
author/creator make?
influence the creation of the
 What is the author’s/creator’s
text?
perspective?
 What is its purpose?
 Does this text seem credible? Why or
why not?
Corroborating



Where do the multiple texts
agree and disagree?
Which texts are more reliable?
Which are the best texts for
answering the compelling
question?
Sourcing


What is the text?
Who created it and when?
Historical Investigation Resource Sheet (cont’d)
Close Reading and Asking Supporting
Contextualizing
Questions
 What else was going on at the
historic time this source was
 What does the text say explicitly?
created?
 What claim does the author/creator
 What else was going on during
make?
this time (historic setting)?
 What evidence does the
 How did the historic setting
author/creator make?
influence the creation of the
 What is the author’s/creator’s
text?
perspective?
 What is its purpose?
 Does this text seem credible? Why or
why not?
Corroborating



Where do the multiple texts
agree and disagree?
Which texts are more reliable?
Which are the best texts for
answering the compelling
question?
Video Sources
Any of these sources could be used as part of a Historical Investigation, though perhaps using them as a concluding
document that can be shown to class as a whole – or different videos can be assigned different groups of students.

Antonio Neves reports on how new redistricting issues around the country can affect the outcome of state
elections and federal policy. (6:08)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/thenews/thegov/story.php?id=19491&package_id=634

TedEd: Gerrymandering: How drawing jagged lines can impact an election
http://usgovteducatorsblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/teded-gerrymandering-how-drawing-jagged.html

ProPublica’s musical animation: The Shenanigans of Redistricting
http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/13/the-strange-geometry-of-gerrymandering-redistrictings-dark-side/

The U.S. Census and the Amazing Apportionment Machine (Through animation, the U.S. Census Bureau helps
explain how the apportionment formula is used to ensure equal representation for all, just like the Founding
Fathers planned.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCnb5_HZc0
Document 1.
Document 2.
Document 3.
Article I, Section II
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States…
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States,
and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State
Document 4.
US Supreme Court Cases
We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, sec. 2 that Representatives be chosen "by the
People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional election is to be
worth as much as another's.
The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the
Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing-one person, one vote
U.S. Supreme Court Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)
Document 5.
In Wesberry v. Sanders, We determined that the constitutional test for the validity of congressional districting schemes
was one of substantial equality of population among the various districts established by a state legislature for the
election of members of the Federal House of Representatives.
In that case, we decided that an apportionment of congressional seats which "contracts the value of some votes and
expands that of others" is unconstitutional, since
"the Federal Constitution intends that, when qualified voters elect members of Congress, each vote be given as much
weight as any other vote. . . ."
We concluded that the constitutional prescription for election of members of the House of Representatives "by the
People," construed in its historical context, "means that, as nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional
election is to be worth as much as another's." We further stated:
"It would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the Great Compromise -- equal representation in the House for
equal numbers of people -- for us to hold that, within the States, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional
districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in choosing a Congressman than others. "
We found further, in Wesberry, that "our Constitution's plain objective" was that "of making equal representation for
equal numbers of people the fundamental goal. . . ." We concluded by stating:
"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under
which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.
Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.
U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), No. 23
Document 6.
January 20, 2012
Justices’ Texas Redistricting Ruling Likely to Help G.O.P.
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected elections maps drawn by a federal court in Texas that had
favored Democratic candidates there.
The unanimous decision said that redistricting is primarily a job for elected state officials and that the lower court had
not paid enough deference to maps drawn by the State Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. The justices sent
the case back to the lower court, extending the uncertainty surrounding this major voting-rights case…
“A district court should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan,” the Supreme
Court’s unsigned decision said. “That plan reflects the state’s policy judgments on where to place new districts and how
to shift existing ones in response to massive population growth.”
The changes to the electoral maps were required because Texas grew by more than four million people in the last
decade, with about 65 percent of that growth coming in the Hispanic population. The growth entitled the state to four
additional House seats. In rejecting significant aspects of the Legislature’s maps, the lower court said it had tried to
ensure that Hispanic voters had adequate opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, adding that political
considerations had played no role…
“This is a big win for Texas, and will require the drawing of districts much more likely to favor Texas’s interim plan,”
Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, said in an e-mail. The new maps, Professor
Hasen said, would “favor Republicans over Democrats” as compared with the lower court’s original maps.
Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas, expressed satisfaction with the decision.
“The Supreme Court confirmed that the San Antonio court drew illegal maps, without regard for the policy decisions of
elected leaders,” Mr. Abbott said in a statement.
State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, a Democrat and the chairman of the Texas Mexican American Legislative
Caucus, which challenged the Legislature’s maps, said that he, too, was “very pleased with this state of affairs,” adding
that he expected a favorable set of new maps from the lower court…
The two competing sets of maps set out the borders of election districts in Texas for the State Legislature and the United
States House of Representatives on the basis of the most recent 10-year census.
The maps drawn by the Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, seemed to favor Republican candidates. The
ones drawn by the lower court, a special three-judge federal court in San Antonio increased the voting power of
Hispanic voters and seemed to help Democratic candidates.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, changes in voting procedures in states with a history of discrimination
cannot take effect until they have been approved by either the Justice Department or a special three-judge court in
Washington…
Document 7.
Three-judge panel questions Md. plan for congressional redistricting
By Aaron C. Davis, Published: December 20, 2011
A three-judge panel hearing a challenge to Maryland’s plan for once-in-a-decade redistricting expressed disbelief
Tuesday when an attorney for the state said there was no evidence that Democrats had gerrymandered the state’s
congressional map.
But the judges expressed even more skepticism that members of a grass-roots civil rights group and their Republicanfunded legal team had proved that Maryland lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of minorities.
The odd coalition of plaintiffs — mostly black community organizers from Prince George’s County and the conservativefunded Legacy Foundation — contended that the surging minority population in Washington’s Maryland suburbs was
carved up to help elect or reelect white Democrats.
The plaintiffs asked the judges — Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and Alexander
Williams Jr. and Roger W. Titus, both of the U.S. District Court for Maryland — to toss out the map and require a new
one consolidating blacks in a third majority-minority district.
“It seems . . . you want us to make a political decision,” Niemeyer told the plaintiff’s lead attorney near the end of a
three-hour hearing at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt.
But the judges also appeared to be searching for a rationale to improve the map, suggesting at several turns that they
viewed the plan proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and approved by the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature as
deeply flawed.
Niemeyer promised the panel would attempt to rule quickly so that Maryland’s scheduled April 3 primary elections
could go forward if the map withstands legal scrutiny
Sources
Antonio Neves reports on how new redistricting issues around the country can affect the outcome of state elections and
federal policy. (6:08)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/thenews/thegov/story.php?id=19491&package_id=634
TedEd: Gerrymandering: How drawing jagged lines can impact an election
http://usgovteducatorsblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/teded-gerrymandering-how-drawing-jagged.html
ProPublica’s musical animation: The Shenanigans of Redistricting
http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/06/13/the-strange-geometry-of-gerrymandering-redistrictings-dark-side/
The U.S. Census and the Amazing Apportionment Machine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCnb5_HZc0
Through animation, the U.S. Census Bureau helps explain how the apportionment formula is used to ensure equal
representation for all, just like the Founding Fathers planned.
Cartoon by Elkannah Tisdale, 1812, Library of Congress
Maryland Congressional Districts
http://planning.maryland.gov/redistricting/2010/congDist.shtml
Gray v. Sanders - 372 U.S. 368 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court, Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), No. 112
Argued January 17, 1963, Decided March 18, 1963 372 U.S. 368
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/368/case.html#381
Reynolds v. Sims - 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), No. 23
Argued November 13, 1963, Decided June 15, 1964*
New York Times, January 20, 2012
Justices’ Texas Redistricting Ruling Likely to Help G.O.P.
By ADAM LIPTAK
The Washington Post, December 20, 2011
Three-judge panel questions Md. plan for congressional redistricting
By Aaron C. Davis