Study finds N.C. gerrymandering results in less health care access – Spectrum News

Report on the Impact of Gerrymandering on Sustainable Development Goals in North Carolina

1.0 Executive Summary

A study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst establishes a direct link between political gerrymandering in North Carolina and diminished access to essential healthcare services. This report analyzes these findings through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), demonstrating that gerrymandering actively undermines progress on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The research indicates that gerrymandering, by creating non-responsive political systems, directly harms communities and creates barriers to fundamental services, irrespective of partisan control.

2.0 Study Overview and Key Findings

Researchers investigated the community-level effects of gerrymandering on access to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in North Carolina over a 20-year period. The study’s objective was to frame gerrymandering as a public health issue, presenting a “harm argument” as a potential alternative to purely constitutional legal challenges.

Key Findings:

• Increased Barriers to Access: Chronically gerrymandered communities experienced significantly worse access to healthcare. Residents in the most affected areas may need to travel up to 30% farther to reach an FQHC.
• Community Fragmentation: The practice of splitting zip codes between multiple legislative districts dilutes community cohesion, making it difficult to assess collective needs and for residents to advocate effectively for local services.
• Reduced Civic Engagement: Residents in fragmented districts are often less aware of their congressional representatives, hindering their ability to seek assistance or voice concerns.
• Diminished Political Accountability: Gerrymandering creates “safe” districts where incumbents face little electoral pressure. This reduces their incentive to be responsive to constituent needs, such as advocating for state funding for new health centers.
• Non-Partisan Impact: The study concluded that the negative impact on healthcare access occurs regardless of which political party is responsible for drawing the district maps.

3.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

3.1 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The study’s findings present a significant challenge to the achievement of SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. Gerrymandering directly obstructs this goal by:

1. Creating physical and logistical barriers to primary and preventive care, which is fundamental to universal health coverage (Target 3.8).
2. Weakening the public infrastructure necessary to support community health by disincentivizing investment in local health centers.
3. Disproportionately affecting communities that rely on FQHCs, thereby exacerbating health disparities.

3.2 SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Gerrymandering is a mechanism that perpetuates and deepens inequality, directly contradicting the core principles of SDG 10.

• It creates unequal access to a fundamental public service—healthcare—based on the political geography of a legislative map.
• By fracturing communities and diluting their collective political power, it ensures that certain populations have less influence on decisions that affect their well-being, reinforcing systemic inequalities.

3.3 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The practice of gerrymandering fundamentally undermines the integrity of democratic processes and institutions, a key focus of SDG 16.

1. It compromises the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (Target 16.6) by making elected officials less responsive to the needs of their constituents.
2. It erodes public trust and participation in the political process when residents feel their voices are not heard and their needs are not met.
3. The resulting political system is less inclusive and representative, failing to serve the interests of all citizens equitably.

4.0 Conclusion

The research from North Carolina provides empirical evidence that gerrymandering is not merely a political issue but a significant public health and sustainable development concern. By limiting access to healthcare, exacerbating inequality, and weakening democratic institutions, the practice serves as a direct impediment to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals. The study suggests that framing gerrymandering in terms of its tangible harm to communities offers a new avenue for challenging the practice and advocating for fair electoral maps that support equitable development and well-being for all citizens.

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

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects the political practice of gerrymandering to public health outcomes. The central finding of the study discussed is that gerrymandering in North Carolina has “resulted in reduced access to health care services,” specifically federally qualified health centers. This establishes a clear link to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  Gerrymandering is an issue of institutional governance and justice. The article describes it as the “redrawing of legislative district boundaries to favor one political party over another,” which undermines the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The article highlights how this practice makes lawmakers “less incentive to be responsive to their constituents,” directly impacting the strength and fairness of democratic 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 and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

   The article focuses on access to “federally qualified health center, which provides primary and preventive health care services regardless of the ability to pay.” The study’s finding that gerrymandering leads to worse access to these centers and forces residents to travel farther directly relates to the goal of ensuring universal access to essential healthcare services.

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

   The article explains that gerrymandering reduces accountability. One of the reasons cited for reduced healthcare access is that when lawmakers are “certain they’re going to be reelected they have less incentive to be responsive to their constituents and less responsive to their needs.” This points to a failure in creating accountable and responsive institutions, which is the core of Target 16.6.

3. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The article mentions the legal challenges surrounding gerrymandering, noting the “torrent of lawsuits” and the Supreme Court’s involvement. The researchers’ motivation was to find an alternative “harm argument” because constitutional arguments have been challenging. This reflects the ongoing struggle to use legal and justice systems to address the inequities created by gerrymandering, linking the issue to the promotion of the rule of law and access to justice.

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

1. Indicator for Target 3.8: Travel distance to healthcare facilities.

   The article explicitly mentions a quantifiable indicator used in the study to measure access to healthcare. It states that “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 serves as a direct measure of physical access to essential health services.

2. Indicator for Target 16.6: Degree of gerrymandering in electoral districts.

   The study itself uses the “magnitude of gerrymandering” as a key variable. The article states that researchers analyzed data to measure the effect of gerrymandering and found that communities that “were more gerrymandered over the last 20 years actually have worse access to health care.” This implies that the level or degree of gerrymandering can be used as an inverse indicator for the effectiveness and accountability of institutions.

3. Indicator for Target 16.6: Public’s ability to identify their elected representatives.

   The article implies another indicator of institutional effectiveness when it notes that in gerrymandered districts where a zip code is split, “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 serve as an indicator of institutional transparency and accessibility.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: spectrumlocalnews.com