The Limits of Political Neutrality in a Divided Nation

It seemed like an obvious position at the time. A “good government” group, born in 1920 during the suffrage movement, could not stand for a manipulation of the political maps, no matter the intent and no matter the party.

The president of the League of Women Voters of California, Gloria Chun Hoo, penned an opinion essay in July criticizing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gerrymander strategy to win five more Democratic seats in the House to counter President Trump and Texas Republicans. “The governor’s proposal is an invitation to chaos, confusion and manipulation,” she wrote.

Weeks later, she found herself, unwittingly, as the lead voice against Mr. Newsom’s redistricting campaign. Her name and her quotes were splashed across the front of an opposition mailer sent to millions of voters. To Democrats, Ms. Chun Hoo’s early condemnation was a betrayal that served to help Republicans and Mr. Trump keep control of the House next year.

Nonpartisan groups pride themselves on standing on principle above party, but they discovered this summer that even they could not escape the fault lines dividing America. Behind the scenes, two key groups weathered threats and upheavals as they were sucked into an identity crisis over how best to fight for democracy.

The League of Women Voters and another like-minded group, Common Cause, initially opposed Mr. Newsom’s approach as dirty politics, just as they did the gerrymandering in Texas. Both groups were instrumental in the creation of California’s independent redistricting system 15 years ago.

But as Mr. Newsom’s plan headed to the ballot and was increasingly seen by liberals as a critical way to hold Mr. Trump accountable, they reversed course and went neutral on the governor’s proposal.