“Gerrymandering” is a fast-paced documentary with an almost haphazard, although captivating, progression. Constantly jumping between examples of gerrymandering – the process of redistricting electoral districts for partisan reasons (jokingly named after a salamander-like district formed under Gerry Elbridge in 1812) – the film’s underlying focus is the story of Proposition 11, a bill proposed and passed in California in 2008 that moved the task of redistricting from the state legislature to an independent commission.

Beginning with a somewhat odd introductory sequence, more akin to PowerPoint than anything else, the film soon establishes its rhythm.

Focusing first on Californian grass-roots activist Kathy Feng (Prop. 11 is not explicitly mentioned until later), the film then staccatos between different examples of gerrymandering around the country, each a small piece in what begins to feel like an ever-building puzzle.

From the story of a local Joe in Iowa who had been elected state counselor with only two votes, to an exploration into redistricting practices that helped elect Obama as senator, to the testimony of Zachary in New Orleans, a man disheartened by redistricting’s racial injustice, the film is at times humorous and at others, truly somber. “Gerrymandering” comments on both the absurdity of the situation and what it seems to characterize as the failure of our democratic system. At times the film suggests that with more modern, precise technology, drawing districts, in effect, decides elections; it reverses our system to the point that voters no longer elect officials, rather officials choose voters.

Woven into the film is a slew of various experts: governors (Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has serious camera time), authors, senators, grass-roots leaders and districting consultants to name just a few. Each showcases a different perspective on the impact and future of gerrymandering, forcing the viewer to ask questions such as: how much power does the American voter have today? And, to what extent is there a subculture of the political elite unbeknownst to the public?

An interesting addition to the film is a focus on the humanistic impact of gerrymandering. The documentary went beyond just the political impact, to the emotional impact on the electorate, referring to testimonies of people crying as redistricting tears them from districts they have resided in for years.

The film also spends time discussing the back story of the issue and its international context. Delving into old black-and-white clips of outraged senators and comparing our system to foreign alternatives, the documentary implies that in terms of true democracy, America has ironically fallen behind England and much of the democratized world.

At its heart, the film seems to be concerned with a lack of citizen activism and political knowledge. In some sense, it seems to subdivide America into the concerned public: authors, lawyers, politicians, etc. – people the film sees as politically cognizant – and the unconcerned public (basically everyone else). This second category of people, it seems to suggest, is unwilling to deal with politics and judges based on simple catch-word facts.

The downside of a film that has a predetermined end is that it needs a bigger message behind the ending, a “so what?” Unfortunately, “Gerrymandering” ends rather weakly with a timid claim that this issue isn’t over yet and a general, unfocused call for people to action.

Overall, “Gerrymandering” is a very good film that provides an intriguing depiction of what may soon be a major issue. But the documentary suffers from a somewhat boring ending that takes away from something that is otherwise quite fun to watch.