The Legislature Holds the Pen
First things first: in Massachusetts, the state legislature is responsible for drawing and approving new congressional district maps. This task falls to the General Court—the formal name for the state’s House and Senate—which forms a special joint committee to draft the new boundaries after each U.S. Census. These maps are presented as a standard piece of legislation, meaning they must pass through both chambers. This gives the party in power significant control over the initial shape of the nine congressional districts. Unlike some states with specific state-level laws on the criteria for congressional districts, Massachusetts law is relatively silent, requiring only that they comply with federal rules like population equality and the Voting
Rights Act. This legislative dominance sets the stage for the governor’s role, which is primarily one of reaction and negotiation.
The Governor’s Ultimate Weapon: The Veto
The single most significant power the Governor of Massachusetts has over congressional maps is the veto. Because the maps are passed as a normal bill, they land on the governor's desk for a signature. If the governor believes the maps are unfairly drawn—a practice known as gerrymandering—or violate legal principles, they can veto the entire plan. This sends the bill back to the legislature and forces lawmakers to either negotiate a new, more acceptable map or attempt to override the veto. An override is a high bar, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This veto power serves as a crucial check on the legislature. The mere threat of a veto can be enough to bring legislative leaders to the negotiating table, prompting changes before a map ever reaches a full vote. For example, in 1962, Republican Governor John Volpe successfully threatened a veto to prevent a Democratic plan he deemed unfair. In the 2020 cycle, then-Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, ultimately signed the maps drawn by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
The Bully Pulpit and Backroom Deals
Beyond the formal veto, a governor can exert considerable informal influence. Using the “bully pulpit,” a governor can take their case directly to the public, using press conferences and media appearances to apply pressure on the legislature. By highlighting perceived flaws in a proposed map—such as splitting communities of interest or creating bizarrely shaped districts—a governor can build a public mandate for a fairer process. Behind the scenes, the governor and their staff engage in negotiations with the Senate President and House Speaker. This political horse-trading is fundamental to how state government functions. A governor might offer support for a legislative priority in exchange for concessions on a redistricting plan. The success of this strategy often depends on the governor's political capital, their relationship with legislative leaders, and the overall political dynamics on Beacon Hill.
Political Reality as the Ultimate Constraint
Ultimately, a governor's power is shaped by political reality. In Massachusetts, the legislature has long been dominated by the Democratic party. For decades, this has frequently resulted in a dynamic of divided government, with a Republican governor facing a Democratic supermajority. When the legislature has a veto-proof supermajority, the governor's formal veto power is weakened, though not entirely eliminated; overriding a governor is still a politically difficult vote to whip. Conversely, if the governor and legislative leaders are from the same party, the governor’s role may be more about ensuring party discipline and signing off on a map that aligns with shared partisan goals. While Massachusetts is the historical home of the term “gerrymander,” some argue that the state's political geography—with Republican voters distributed relatively evenly across the state—makes it difficult to draw a competitive GOP district regardless of the process. This context means a governor’s fight over maps is often less about creating partisan balance and more about ensuring districts are compact and keep communities together.
