Speak Out – Indivisible Benton County

Hello,

I’ve been signed up for Indivisible’s newsletter and coming to a few events and protests for awhile, and after the Sarah’s town hall and hearing the reading of specifically Benton-County Indivisible’s take on gerrymandering I felt I needed to speak up.

Over the last month I’ve been extremely disappointed in Indivisible’s decision to not only support gerrymandering but also to actively encourage supporters to gerrymander their own states.

At the end of every email Indivisible claims to be a “locally-led, people-powered movement of thousands of local groups in red, blue, and purple states, and in urban, suburban, and rural areas”. On Indivisible Benton County’s website you state “Our power is from the people and our goal is to build a more perfect and representative government that is for the people and by the people”.

How exactly is this compatible with active efforts to take away choice and agency from voters? Is that where the more representative democracy comes in? Is deciding that party politicians should choose our representatives instead of us “by the people and for the people”? Is disenfranchising voters from red districts and rural areas what a “locally-led, people-powered movement” in red, blue, purple, urban, suburban, and rural areas does?

I heard your official statement, and I am aware of the argument that we need to sacrifice democracy now to save democracy from the republicans. I understand the motivation to prevent immediate harm. But I entirely reject the idea that it is ok to do the wrong thing for the “right” reasons, and I entirely reject the notion that it’s ok to give up democracy as long as your rulers agree with you.

I would first like to address the argument that California’s efforts are fine because they have to be voted on by the people rather than ignoring them. The simple truth is that this is by coincidence rather than by design. The people of California voted to include independent districting into their constitution because they believed it was unjust for either political party to do it. The California legislature was thus forced to propose a ballot initiative that temporarily ignores that when they wanted to gerrymander. The idea that voters specifically declaring they do not want their state to be gerrymandered makes it somehow more ok to do doesn’t really hold water for me. Especially since the link in Indivisible’s 8/14 newsletter includes calls to gerrymander states that don’t have these safeguards as well, and never once calls to do it by putting it before voters, instead simply asking the legislatures to do it on their own.

I would next like to address the idea that this is temporary. Gerrymandering has existed in the U.S since the early 1800’s. Today a mixture of both democratic and republican states are still gerrymandered. Every single time the issue gets brought up it gets shot down with the argument of “the other guys do it so we have to as well”. We have finally begun to gain grass-roots traction for independent districting and a few states have decided that it doesn’t matter if “the right guys” are doing it, it is still un-democratic and the people have a responsibility to say we won’t do it no matter which party. How does it look if the second we *really really pretty please* want to win an election we just overwrite all of those? And when does it stop? If we set a precedent of gerrymandering when it’s convenient who’s to say the mainstream democrats won’t declare every election is really important to win and “we really actually need democratic politicians to decide who gets elected instead of the people this time we promise”? They already use this same argument to shut out third-party candidates and progressive candidates year after year. It’s always going to be important to win against the republicans. It has never stopped and it will never unless *we* decide to stand our ground to protect democracy.

I would finally like to address the idea that this is helpful to the cause. Most contested races aren’t decided by the party-line voters, they’re decided by the in-betweens. The idea that “both the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad” so it doesn’t matter who one votes for is pervasive and an important barrier to gaining votes. It was not lost on this crowd that democratic states immediately started gerrymandering in response. The nuanced message of “well *we* did it because the Republicans did it first” was already lost within 2 days of entering the news cycle; 10 years from now nobody will remember the context for why this was done. It’ll just be another example of both parties gerrymandering because they care about gaining power more than they do about representing the people.
The conservatives online had a field day with the fact that the Texas democrats protested gerrymandering by fleeing to Illinois, another state gerrymandered in favor of democrats. How are we supposed to win against authoritarianism when the Democratic Party’s response to Republicans moving right is to move with them? If we take opportunities where the Republican party takes an action that people across the aisle disagree with, that we could use to show we’re different, and immediately muddy the waters by doing the same thing? Indivisible Benton’s stated mission is to advance bold progressive policies and leaders, and I fully agree. I think the way to win this is by showing that we are *actually* different, that we care about what the people want, that we’re not just another corrupt party that will throw voters under the bus when it’s convenient for them. The status quo got us here. Buying into the lesser of two evils got us a 2nd Trump term. The people are sick of mainstream sleezy democrats. They’re sick of corporate democrats. They had the choice between Trump and the lesser of two evils three times now and chose Trump two of them. This is not a fluke, and being *just* enough better than the republicans to get votes without having to make any reforms is clearly not working. We will not gain any votes by being the party that just wants everything to stay how it was in 2015 as opposed 1985 like the republicans. The people want real change, and if we want to beat fascism we have to give people a real alternative, not ignore the votes of everyone who disagrees with us.

In conclusion, the path out of tyranny is more democracy, not less. We cannot solve this by saying the Democratic Party should be able to speak over the people; if the Democratic party wants more seats they should put forward better candidates and convince more voters instead of ignoring more voters.

You can’t sacrifice democracy to save democracy.

The people have the power, the people voted us into this, and the people are going to have to vote us out. Indivisible has to decide: are they really a grass-roots organization that supports a representative democracy? Or are they an organization that just supports the Democratic party whatever they do?

Thank you,
Coleman

Hi Coleman,
Thank you for writing such a principled and thoughtful letter. I want to begin by saying that your devotion to democracy and your insistence on holding us accountable to its highest standards is admirable, and I respect it deeply. Indivisible was founded on the conviction that democracy must be people-powered, transparent, and representative -and that conviction has not changed.

Where we diverge is not in values, but in how we understand the moment we are living through. I do not believe 2025 is a year of “politics as usual.” What we face now is not the familiar, though corrosive, problem of partisan maneuvering. It is something far more dangerous: the deliberate consolidation of power into the hands of one faction and, increasingly, into the hands of one man.

The Texas redistricting process made this clear. The congressional map was drawn not only to favor Republicans, but specifically to guarantee Trump the five seats he demanded. That is not just gerrymandering as we have known it in American history; it is the legislative branch bending to the dictates of someone intended to remain in power. Similar efforts are already being prepared in other Republican-controlled states.

In a normal democracy, I would agree with you: gerrymandering is wrong, and the solution is independent redistricting commissions and structural reform. But Democrats have tried to ban gerrymandering at the national level, repeatedly, and Republicans have blocked it every time, because their power depends on it. That leaves us with a blatant choice: do we cling to principle while the other side uses every tool to entrench authoritarian power, or do we act to prevent them from locking in permanent rule?

History shows what happens when democratic forces choose restraint in the face of authoritarian aggression. After Reconstruction, federal authorities looked the other way while white supremacist legislatures dismantled Black political power through poll taxes, literacy tests, and terror. Their refusal to intervene condemned generations of Americans to disenfranchisement and segregation. In Weimar Germany, democratic leaders hesitated to confront fascists head-on, believing that preserving norms was more important than breaking precedent to resist extremists. That hesitation allowed authoritarianism to take root, and by the time they recognized the danger, it was too late.

We should notice those lessons. Principles only endure if the system that protects them survives. Refusing to act in this moment would not preserve the moral high ground -it would surrender Congress, and potentially the future of democracy itself, to a regime that does not even pretend to respect the will of the people.

I hear your concern that meeting fire with fire risks normalizing the very tactics we oppose. That is a real danger, and I do not dismiss it. But I believe the greater risk today is paralysis: allowing Republicans to lock in permanent majorities through manipulated maps while we stand idle out of faithfulness to a principle they have already abandoned. In that scenario, there will be no path left to undo gerrymandering, because the system itself will have been rigged against reform for a decade or more.

When I talk about defending democracy, I am not equating it with Democratic Party victories. What I mean is defending the ability of elections to remain real contests where power is not preordained, where voters have a genuine say, and where leaders can be held accountable. A Congress engineered to entrench MAGA power would not be a venue for democratic debate; it would be an instrument of authoritarian rule.

You and I both agree on the end goal: a future where gerrymandering is eliminated, where elections are truly fair, and where voters, not politicians, choose their representatives. Where we differ is on how to get there from here. I see California’s action, and the actions we are urging elsewhere, as a tragic but necessary exception -a way of buying time and preventing authoritarian entrenchment so that genuine reform remains possible.

You are right that the path out of tyranny is ultimately more democracy, not less. I share that conviction. But history shows us that when authoritarian forces are allowed to rig the rules unchecked, the path to “more democracy” can be closed off for generations. Our task is to keep that path open, even if it means taking extraordinary steps now.

I do not embrace my position lightly and have no satisfaction in coming forward to defend rigged maps. But I believe that if we fail to act now, we will lose not just the battle over maps, but the republic itself.

I have lived under a radical right dictatorship during the majority of my youth years. Dismantling the Congress was one of the first acts taken by the authoritarian regime to keep itself in power. Surrendering our legislature now would have the same effect as a dictatorial mandate.

We cannot afford to lose democracy on principle. We must defend democracy now, so that principle can live another day. Only then can we afford to show that we are actually different.

With respect and solidarity,

Maria

Legislative Committee Chair

One comment

Maria Faria

Friday, September 12, 2025 / 3:23 pm

Hi Coleman,
Thank you for writing such a principled and thoughtful letter. I want to begin by saying that your devotion to democracy and your insistence on holding us accountable to its highest standards is admirable, and I respect it deeply. Indivisible was founded on the conviction that democracy must be people-powered, transparent, and representative -and that conviction has not changed.

Where we diverge is not in values, but in how we understand the moment we are living through. I do not believe 2025 is a year of “politics as usual.” What we face now is not the familiar, though corrosive, problem of partisan maneuvering. It is something far more dangerous: the deliberate consolidation of power into the hands of one faction and, increasingly, into the hands of one man.

The Texas redistricting process made this clear. The congressional map was drawn not only to favor Republicans, but specifically to guarantee Trump the five seats he demanded. That is not just gerrymandering as we have known it in American history; it is the legislative branch bending to the dictates of someone intended to remain in power. Similar efforts are already being prepared in other Republican-controlled states.

In a normal democracy, I would agree with you: gerrymandering is wrong, and the solution is independent redistricting commissions and structural reform. But Democrats have tried to ban gerrymandering at the national level, repeatedly, and Republicans have blocked it every time, because their power depends on it. That leaves us with a blatant choice: do we cling to principle while the other side uses every tool to entrench authoritarian power, or do we act to prevent them from locking in permanent rule?

History shows what happens when democratic forces choose restraint in the face of authoritarian aggression. After Reconstruction, federal authorities looked the other way while white supremacist legislatures dismantled Black political power through poll taxes, literacy tests, and terror. Their refusal to intervene condemned generations of Americans to disenfranchisement and segregation. In Weimar Germany, democratic leaders hesitated to confront fascists head-on, believing that preserving norms was more important than breaking precedent to resist extremists. That hesitation allowed authoritarianism to take root, and by the time they recognized the danger, it was too late.

We should notice those lessons. Principles only endure if the system that protects them survives. Refusing to act in this moment would not preserve the moral high ground -it would surrender Congress, and potentially the future of democracy itself, to a regime that does not even pretend to respect the will of the people.

I hear your concern that meeting fire with fire risks normalizing the very tactics we oppose. That is a real danger, and I do not dismiss it. But I believe the greater risk today is paralysis: allowing Republicans to lock in permanent majorities through manipulated maps while we stand idle out of faithfulness to a principle they have already abandoned. In that scenario, there will be no path left to undo gerrymandering, because the system itself will have been rigged against reform for a decade or more.

When I talk about defending democracy, I am not equating it with Democratic Party victories. What I mean is defending the ability of elections to remain real contests where power is not preordained, where voters have a genuine say, and where leaders can be held accountable. A Congress engineered to entrench MAGA power would not be a venue for democratic debate; it would be an instrument of authoritarian rule.

You and I both agree on the end goal: a future where gerrymandering is eliminated, where elections are truly fair, and where voters, not politicians, choose their representatives. Where we differ is on how to get there from here. I see California’s action, and the actions we are urging elsewhere, as a tragic but necessary exception -a way of buying time and preventing authoritarian entrenchment so that genuine reform remains possible.

You are right that the path out of tyranny is ultimately more democracy, not less. I share that conviction. But history shows us that when authoritarian forces are allowed to rig the rules unchecked, the path to “more democracy” can be closed off for generations. Our task is to keep that path open, even if it means taking extraordinary steps now.

I do not embrace my position lightly and have no satisfaction in coming forward to defend rigged maps. But I believe that if we fail to act now, we will lose not just the battle over maps, but the republic itself.

I have lived under a radical right dictatorship during the majority of my youth years. Dismantling the Congress was one of the first acts taken by the authoritarian regime to keep itself in power. Surrendering our legislature now would have the same effect as a dictatorial mandate.

We cannot afford to lose democracy on principle. We must defend democracy now, so that principle can live another day. Only then can we afford to show that we are actually different.

With respect and solidarity,

Maria

Legislative Committee Chair

Comments are closed.