New research links gerrymandering to reduced healthcare services – News-Medical

Impact of Gerrymandering on Sustainable Development Goals: A North Carolina Case Study

Executive Summary

• A study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst establishes a direct link between political gerrymandering in North Carolina and diminished access to healthcare services.
• These findings indicate that the practice poses a significant challenge to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• The research concludes that drawing legislative districts for partisan advantage creates tangible public health harms, which could provide a new basis for legal challenges against the practice.

Analysis of Findings in Relation to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The study’s conclusions directly conflict with the objectives of SDG 3 by demonstrating that gerrymandering impedes universal access to essential healthcare.
• Key findings on health access include:
  1. Communities in North Carolina subjected to chronic gerrymandering over the past two decades exhibit significantly poorer access to healthcare infrastructure.
  2. Residents in the most affected areas may be required to travel up to 30% farther to reach Federally Qualified Health Centers, which provide primary and preventive care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.
• This reduced access fundamentally undermines the core SDG 3 principle of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.

Gerrymandering as a Driver of Inequality (SDG 10)

• The practice of gerrymandering exacerbates inequalities within communities, directly conflicting with the aims of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• The mechanisms through which inequality is increased were identified as:
  1. Community Fragmentation: Splitting cohesive communities and zip codes across multiple districts obscures collective needs and weakens the ability of residents to advocate for essential services.
  2. Diminished Civic Engagement: Residents in fragmented districts are often less likely to know their elected representatives, hindering their ability to seek assistance or hold officials accountable for local needs.
• This process results in a system where access to fundamental services like healthcare is unequally distributed based on politically motivated boundaries rather than public need.

Undermining Accountable Institutions (SDG 16)

• Gerrymandering fundamentally weakens the effectiveness, accountability, and inclusivity of governing institutions, a central concern of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• The study highlights how gerrymandering leads to a breakdown in institutional responsiveness:
  1. Elected officials in non-competitive, gerrymandered districts face less electoral pressure to be responsive to the needs of their constituents.
  2. This lack of accountability creates a disincentive for officials to advocate for crucial community resources, such as securing state funding for the construction of new health centers.
• The research demonstrates that this institutional failure is not merely a political issue but one with measurable, negative consequences for public welfare and access to services.

Conclusion and Broader Implications

• The study’s findings are explicitly non-partisan, concluding that regardless of which political party benefits from a gerrymandered map, the negative impact on healthcare access persists.
• By establishing a causal link between gerrymandering and public health harm, the research offers a new framework for challenging the practice, shifting the legal focus from political disadvantage to demonstrable harm to human well-being.
• The researchers posit that the patterns observed in North Carolina are likely replicable in other gerrymandered states, suggesting a systemic, nationwide barrier to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article’s central theme is the direct impact of a political process (gerrymandering) on public health. The study’s main finding is that “gerrymandering in North Carolina resulted in reduced access to health care services,” which directly relates to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Gerrymandering is a practice that creates political inequality by giving one group an unfair electoral advantage. The article shows this political inequality leads to inequalities in outcomes, specifically disparities in healthcare access. The mention of “racial gerrymandering” further highlights the connection to reducing inequalities among different population groups.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article discusses how gerrymandering weakens democratic institutions. It describes a system where lawmakers “have less incentive to be responsive to their constituents” and where it is difficult for residents “to advocate for themselves.” This points to a failure to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The numerous lawsuits mentioned also reflect a struggle for justice within these institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services…

   • The study specifically focuses on access to “a federally qualified health center, which provides primary and preventive health care services regardless of the ability to pay.” This directly aligns with the goal of ensuring access to essential health-care services for all.

2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…

   • Gerrymandering is a direct barrier to political inclusion. By drawing districts to favor one party, it systematically disempowers voters in the opposing party or in split communities, preventing their full and effective participation in the political process.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   • The article explains that gerrymandering reduces accountability, as elected officials in “safe” districts are “certain they’re going to be reelected” and therefore “have less incentive to be responsive to their constituents and less responsive to their needs.”

4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   • The article notes that when a community is split between districts, it can be “hard to determine a community’s needs and for residents to advocate for themselves.” This demonstrates how gerrymandering undermines responsive, participatory, and representative governance.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Travel Distance to Health Centers

   • The article explicitly mentions a quantifiable indicator used in the study: “in the most chronically gerrymandered communities residents might have to travel up to 30% farther in order to obtain certain kinds of health care.” This travel distance is a direct measure of healthcare access (relevant to Target 3.8).

2. Magnitude of Gerrymandering

   • The study itself measures the “magnitude of gerrymandering” at the community level by zip code. This measurement serves as an indicator of the lack of political inclusion and representative decision-making (relevant to Targets 10.2 and 16.7).

3. Constituent Awareness and Engagement

   • The article implies an indicator of institutional failure by stating that in gerrymandered districts, “residents are less likely to know who their Congress members are so they don’t know who to contact when they have a problem.” The percentage of residents who can identify their representative could be used as a measure of institutional effectiveness (relevant to Target 16.6).

4. Allocation of State Funding

   • An implied indicator of lawmaker responsiveness is the allocation of public funds. The article suggests that less responsive lawmakers are less likely to advocate “for state funding to be allocated to their community to build a health center” (relevant to Target 16.6).

Summary of Findings

Source: baynews9.com