Political technology' is not a term much used in the West. But spin and political consulting are outdated labels. Spin doctors and political consultants do more than spin or consult; they also meet the definition of engineers of the political system. Particularly in the United States, where a different type of political universe has been constructed: Political Action Committees, dark money and astroturfing.

This recognition that the struggle over Black and White spaces extends beyond the street and into the corridors of political power is critical to understanding the issues and solutions discussed throughout this book. Incremental changes can be made at the margins within police departments and 911 call centers. But only sweeping legislative change, backed by true voter enfranchisement, can bring about the racial détente needed to protect Black bodies in public White spaces. The reforms advocated within these pages–reallocating police resources, deterring and punishing 911 abuse, reining in self-defense claims, heightening reasonable police use of force requirements, and ending qualified immunity–enjoy broad public support. But these changes elude us because voter suppression tactics deny marginalized communities full voter enfranchisement, because too few Americans equate voting with activism, and because too many people of color are denied meaningful opportunities to occupy the political White space.

Elections are at the core of democratic politics. We rely on them to perform the vital tasks of organizing and aggregating preferences, of determining leadership, of instituting accountability, of regulating conflict, and – more amorphous but no less important – of regenerating a broadly shared sense that the institutions and persons who govern us do so legitimately. As “moments of heightened citizenship” they focus the collective attention of the public on questions of who should be delegated governing authority and to what end it should be dedicated. They are among the only moments in which “the people” is allowed to speak authoritatively in its collective capacity, and the rituals surrounding them positively affirm community ties while also marking out its boundaries of exclusion.

The 2016 presidential election brought on a blizzard of foreboding announcements about American democracy. Yet as political scientists and pundits alike turned their gaze toward the spectacle of Trump’s Washington, fewer seemed as concerned about what was happening in places like Raleigh or Jefferson City. In fact, scholars and commentators troubled by abuses of power in the executive branch pointed to federalism as “the most effective tool” for protecting democracy, “especially if other constitutional checks fail.” States, it was argued, provided crucial venues for dissent and the formation of alternative governing coalitions. And while new analyses of democratic backsliding mentioned gerrymandering in state legislatures and state-level episodes of “constitutional hardball,” they tended to focus their attention on the national level.

We investigate the political and social consequences of the 2010 election and the gerrymandering that followed. We show that many of the governing parties that drew extremely biased maps also enacted greater restrictions on voter eligibility and ballot access prior to the 2016 presidential election. Furthermore, we find evidence that the level of partisan bias present in state legislatures influenced policy outcomes, distinct from partisan control of the legislatures. Many state legislatures, including those in crucial swing states, have effectively insulated themselves from public accountability at the same time that their constituents face growing public health challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.