By: Jared Wesley
There is a troubling pattern to the way Danielle Smith’s UCP approaches governance.
When it doesn’t get its way, it rewrites proven processes and disregards the norms underpinning them to engineer what it wants.
Whether it’s undermining legislative officers, loosening ethics rules governing gifts to politicians, re-writing the rules of direct democracy or overriding municipal decisions it dislikes, Smith’s UCP lacks any reverence for institutions that have kept government’s power in check.
That tactic appears to now have been extended to redrawing electoral maps. We probably shouldn’t be surprised.
When Canadian politicians redraw boundaries to give themselves an unfair advantage, that’s cheating. More specifically, it is gerrymandering: the American-style, partisan practice of carving up electoral maps not seen on this side of the border in half a century.
But how do we know when governments in Canada cross the line when drawing lines?
I’ve studied electoral boundaries commissions and chaired one myself. Three key questions come to mind when deciding whether a government is gerrymandering.
The first is a process concern.
Was it open and independent? Arms-length boundary commissions used across Canada and throughout Alberta history ensure voters get to choose their representatives, not the other way around.
Before we adopted independent commissions, governments would get to draw the lines on the map, often to cement their grip on power or stall their opponents’ advance. We’ve since evolved in ways Americans have not. Today, transparency, non- or multi-partisanship, and meaningful public consultation are all safeguards against this sort of crass partisan manipulation. Hiding proposed maps from public scrutiny, skipping hearings, and denying citizens the chance to challenge draft boundaries are beyond the pale in Alberta. Even further beyond the line: tearing up independently drawn maps in favour of those crafted behind closed doors.
On this count, the UCP has failed. After an independent commission spent months consulting Albertans and produced a map, the Smith government rejected it and created a new process by striking a new “advisory panel.” This is often a tactic that governments use to get a preferred result from a “neutral” panel composed of their chosen appointees.
The UCP went even further, explicitly removing the requirement for public hearings (which the panel never conducted). And, in a move not seen since before Peter Lougheed was premier, they will not have a formal opportunity to provide comment before it is imposed on them.
Can the UCP reconstruct the boundaries process in a legal sense? Sure. Should they do it from a democratic perspective? Absolutely not.
The next two questions involve looking at the outcome of the process..
First: Does the new map provide effective representation? The Supreme Court of Canada has established that electoral boundaries must preserve two principles above all others: voter parity and communities of interest.
The goal is to ensure citizens have a reasonably equal voice in government, while maintaining in single districts groups of citizens with shared geography, history, culture, economic pursuits, social connections, and other distinct representational needs.
Most of the time, maps are updated purely on the basis of demographic shifts, with drafters struggling to keep these communities of interest together. When commissions split them, the public responds swiftly and loudly, often resulting in reversals. Be on the lookout for maps drawn to deliberately break up historic groupings.
How does this apply to Alberta in the present? The new map raises serious concerns. The disparity between the most and least populous ridings is higher than before. Lethbridge’s two urban ridings would be carved into four constituencies extending far into the countryside to the province’s eastern and southern borders. Three northwest Calgary ridings would also be made “rurban”, diluting urban voices by combining them with rural ones and vice versa.
The biggest cleavage in Alberta, surveys and elections repeatedly show, is between folks who live in cities and those who do not. They constitute distinct communities of interest who, in this case, are being “cracked” into multiple districts with no rationale beyond an apparently partisan one. In the end, urban dwellers have different interests and representational needs, just as rural residents risk losing their distinctive voice when absorbed into urban-dominated districts. And again: residents, themselves, will have no meaningful opportunity to voice their concerns or support for this reconfiguration. In previous engagements, they resoundingly rejected “rurban” ridings.
Why would the UCP process produce such an outcome? That brings us to the final question: Does the new map systematically favour one party?
Gerrymandering works by packing opposition supporters into a handful of districts, cracking their voting blocs across multiple constituencies, or otherwise drawing artificial boundaries that manufacture favourable outcomes for the party in power.
Oddly-shaped ridings — like rurban ones — are one clear giveaway. But so, too, are lines on a map that divide actual communities of interest to consolidate partisan ones.
The litmus test involves determining whether the new communities created have anything in common beyond helping the governing party stay in power.
Do they create more safe seats for the governing party, fewer competitive ridings, and/or an increased chance of winning the next election? Do they diminish the clout of opponents within the governing party itself by outnumbering them in new districts?
Again, the new map is very troubling. The UCP’s electoral strength lies disproportionately in rural areas and its popularity is waning in the cities. Stretching Calgary and Lethbridge districts into surrounding conservative territory would represent a clear intent to reduce competition and reverse the NDP’s momentum. Why else would they meddle with these areas and leave others alone?
Smith’s chief of staff, Rob Anderson, said on Monday that the NDP was complaining about the new map because “they don’t want any change whatsoever that could level the playing field.” This is a clear tell that the changes will benefit the UCP.
At the same time, the rurban ridings take the wind out of separatist sails. Factions within the UCP are mobilizing to control nominations and the leadership. Rurban ridings would reduce the ability of predominantly rural separatist forces to take control of constituency associations at a pivotal moment in the UCP’s history. If Premier Smith is unable to oust separatists from her party by other means, gerrymandering might do it.
Beyond these partisan calculations, one to benefit the party and one to benefit Smith herself, there is no apparent rationale for rejecting the majority report and redrawing the boundaries in the ways they have.
Overall, the problem with the UCP’s new map has as much to do with process as the outcome. They have abandoned a rules-based approach that provided independent oversight and public input for one that allows its hand-picked appointees to draw their own lines behind closed doors. Why did they do it? Simply because they didn’t like the outcome.
Gerrymandering is a gateway to other forms of democratic backsliding. Once governments learn they can do away with free and fair elections, honouring other democratic norms seems quaint. Worse yet, manipulating electoral boundaries weakens the ability of citizens to hold them accountable or reverse the changes. If there is a red line for conservatives committed to democracy in this province, the UCP is crossing it.
Jared Wesley is a professor of political science and leads the Common Ground project at the University of Alberta.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent.
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.
Keeping leftist governance out of Alberta is entirely rational.
If courts actually, underscore actually, rule that any laws were broken, then let that process run its course.
But until that occurs , your umbrage is grossly misplaced.
Most of Alberta's dysfunctions relate to trying to sustain social transfers that are fundamentally unsustainable. And an NDP government will worsent them.
Alberta's aspiration should be Singapore not modern day Los Angeles.
The whole theory of "impartial districting" and "communities of interest" is fake, and one more example of how Canada empowers the "expert" biens-pensants over the elected representatives of the people as our true rulers.
Far better to let elected governments do the redistricting, with a rule limiting the maximum ratio of perimeter squared to area in order to keep things from getting too far out of hand.