Editor's Note: This story is the second of a two-part series on gerrymandering. The first installment can be read here.

DALLAS — In 2013, the Supreme Court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines. The historic decision freed nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

The impact of that vote was felt immediately in Texas. The state announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps here would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, were subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

Legal scholars from around the country feared how the cascading effect of that decision might impact laws in Texas and around the country. The high court turned electoral map-drawing into a choose-your-own-adventure exercise for states controlled by one party. As a result, Democratic State Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas said Republican gerrymandering has made the general elections meaningless in Texas because Republicans running for office only have to appeal to the extremes in their party during the primary season. 

“Gerrymandering has increased the divisiveness in our politics,” he said. “There’s just no question about that. When politicians understand that they can get elected by appealing to 3 percent of the electorate that may decide their primary election, it really shuts out the 90-plus percent of the electorate that would get to weigh in generally.”

One of the techniques political topographers use to tip the balance toward one side is known as packing a district. If there is a swath of voters who identify with the other party, the map-makers pack them all together in a district and essentially punt on winning there. Packing removes opposition from other districts, making them easier to win. Anchia used his district as an example of this practice. 

“The district that I represent was packed with Latinos and packed with Democrats, and it performs exactly like it was designed by Republicans,” he said. “It was one of the districts that was declared unconstitutional by a three-judge panel in San Antonio. I won last time around with 80 percent of the vote. Likewise, you have a number of races for Republicans who win with 80 percent of the vote.”

“I don't think that is good for our democracy,” he continued. “I think we should have a robust competition in the marketplace of ideas. That competition has a moderating influence on politics.”

The Center for American Progress released a study in July that found Republicans in four states used map-guaranteed statehouse majorities to enact voting restriction (such as photo ID laws) and block easements to the ballot box (like longer early voting periods) — efforts that have proven particularly burdensome for communities of color, which usually vote Democratic.

David Vance, a national media strategist for Common Cause, a D.C.-based watchdog group that advocates for fair elections, said a range of issues — from gun control and abortion to trans rights and education — have been affected by the gerrymandering all over the country.

“When you have a map that's designed to basically preordain the partisan outcome or districts, then the only electoral game in town for most districts is the primary,” he said.

“There have been States where there's been attacks on the transgender community,” he continued. “The bathroom bills for instance, in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, [Republicans] were not concerned that there would be a backlash. Because of that discrimination, I think some of the strictest abortion restrictions have come in purple states that have overwhelmingly Republican legislative majority. That majority is built on gerrymandering where policies simply don't mesh with where the people in that state are ideologically.”

U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey represents a district the Washington Post has named one of the most gerrymandered in the country. He compared the current Republican push to suppress and misrepresent voters to the pushback against civil rights in the ’60s. Our law books, he said, would reflect a more moderate country. 

“There are a lot of really good pieces of legislation that would get passed if gerrymandering weren't so blatant,” he said. 

A reporter asked Veasey to comment on how gerrymandering has affected a few specific issues. Laws governing gun control, medical care, and education, the Fort Worth Democrat said, would fall more in line with what the vast majority of Americans want. 

“If we didn't have so much extreme gerrymandering on the Republican side, there’s no way in the world we would have people supporting a lawsuit that would take people's insurance away that have preexisting conditions,” he said. Right. There's no way that you would not expand Medicaid in your state if it wasn't for partisan primary politics.

“The issue of school vouchers has been fueled by the extreme right, he continued. “I don't think that you would see that gaining the traction that it has in Texas were it not for extreme gerrymandering.”

During the last several legislative sessions, Rep. Anchia filed a bill that would create an independent redistricting commission, which would require a change in the Texas constitution. Several other states, including Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania, have adopted the practice of allowing independent citizens in their respective states who meet certain criteria to draw electoral maps. 

When Anchia served as chairman of the Dallas Charter Review Commission, he was able to create a redistricting process in that city that excluded partisan politicians and special interest groups. He envisions a statewide process that would look similar. 

“The commission should be immune from pressure by the elected class,” he said. “In other words, the commission can't be a proxy for an elected official, and there should be a cone of silence around the process to where you don't have elected officials meddling or lobbying members of the commission in a way that is not available to members of the public. 

“All of the meetings need to happen in public,” he continued, “so there are no backroom deals. Then, finally, you have to adhere to redistricting criteria, and that is well established in case law and the U.S. Constitution.”

One promising factor for voting rights advocates is the potential turnout of the upcoming presidential election. After the 2008 election, won by President Obama, Dems were at virtual parity with the GOP in the House. Anchia believes that down-ballot Democrats, who would likely support the creation of an independent commission, have a better shot at flipping the state legislature in November. 

“Vice President Biden competing neck-and-neck with Donald Trump will have an impact down-ballot — even without the one-touch voting or straight-ticket voting that was eliminated two legislative sessions before by Republicans,” Anchia said. 

Three Republican members of the state legislature, two in the U.S. Congress, and the Texas and national Republican Party offices either did not return phone calls and emails for this story or declined to comment. 

Veasey said the only way to reverse the impact of gerrymandering is by voting out those who have perpetuated the systemic racism of our electoral system. 

“If you can't see blatant racism in what's going on now with a lot of these schemes to make it harder for people to vote, you really need to either get some cultural sensitivity training or you need to find some African American friends that think differently from you to help enlighten you on exactly what's happened,” he said.