Putting a stop to re-redistricting

Long-time readers may recall that I have a particular obsession interest in mid-decade redistricting efforts, generally known as re-redistricting, which have become a staple of right-wing lawmaking the past couple of years.

To review for a moment, it wasn’t unusual for states to have partisan mayhem in the 19th century, when parties would try to redraw congressional district lines every time a legislature would change party lines. It’s why, for about 100 years now, both parties, across the country, agreed that doing redistricting once a decade (after the census) is more than enough.

That is, until about two years ago when Republicans decided that system wasn’t working for them anymore. In Colorado, Texas, and Georgia, Republican state lawmakers, usually driven by party leaders in DC, decided to re-redistrict after winning control of their respective state legislatures. (Colorado’s stunt was overturned in court, Texas’ is still in litigation, and Georgia’s will be challenged by a lawsuit any day now.)

It’s prompted one member of Congress to try and put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. It’s about time.

On the heels of the bitter Texas redistricting battle, a leading conservative House Democrat is going to war over the issue, introducing a bill to prohibit politicians from creating Congressional boundaries and to prevent mid-decade redrawing.

Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a leading Blue Dog Democrat who saw several of his Texas colleagues lose in November because of redistricting, will launch his legislation this week. The veteran Member is seeking to create national standards for redistricting that include the creation of nonpartisan commissions in each state to redraw Congressional district lines just once every 10 years.

Tanner said he’s bringing his bill forward now because redistricting has become an overly political process, leading to a system that favors the extreme party wings and locks out input from average Americans. Majority parties in individual states can dictate election outcomes and set up a system in which Congressional districts no longer contain diversity — ideological and otherwise, he said.

“Politics has hijacked our democracy,” Tanner said in an interview. “It’s become an inside ball game — basically, the people be damned.”

Excellent idea. Tanner’s initiative could reduce gerrymandering, make congressional races more competitive, and eliminate re-redistricting schemes altogether. Uniform standards, neutral commissions, a healthier process for everyone. It’s an excellent idea that is long overdue.

Indeed, I like the details of the plan so much, I can’t think of anything wrong with it.

* States would be required to establish independent commissions of at least five members to review new census data and come up with one, or several, plans to present to their legislatures for approval.

* The map would be approved unamended by the Legislature and governor. If they can’t agree, the map would go to court.

* The commissions would comprise an equal number of members appointed by the minority and majority floor leaders in the two state legislative houses. A majority of those members must appoint an additional member, who would serve as chairman.

* Those commissioners must be registered voters for at least four years, but cannot have held elective or appointed office, been an employee of a political campaign or worked for a political party. No member of the commission can run for the House until after the districts are redrawn the next time, or in 10 years.

Naturally, Tanner’s convinced his idea won’t go anywhere.

Tanner acknowledged that the bill faces little chance of passage this Congress, saying: “This leadership in the House will not let it see the light of day. They will probably try to choke it on the front end.”

True, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

Sigh. this is so “common sense” it makes want to weep that is basically pure fantasy…

Perhaps enough Democrats can get behind something like this that they can make the republicans look bad for squashing it, but I doubt it.

  • This could be easily done even more simply and fairly than by creating a commission (always subject to the currents of popular culture) of any kind. Imagine each state divided into vertical strips of, say, 30 mile widths. Divide the population by the number of a state’s representatives to get the number of people for each district. Starting at the northwest (or whichever corner), extend the strip downward until it includes that many people. That’s the first district. Continue on to the bottom, then turn and come back up (ensuring single districts instead of split ones). It would completely take politics out of the equation. It could be done nationwide, at every census. All it would take would be a few computer geeks to map it out and run the programs. Simple, cheap, eminently fair, and effective. Four qualities anathema to Washington legislation but beneficial to the citizenry. If only…

  • It’s not quite as simple as President Lindsay describes, because people on the wrong side of a natural barrier (like a river) could find it hard to get to the polling place, and if natural boundaries are ignored, it’s hard for people to know what district they are in. If your straight line divides a house in two, on which side do you put the people in that house?

    Nevertheless, Lindsay is on to something: if we can agree on the criteria, we can then program a computer to crank out district lines based on those criteria. I would favor using natural boundaries (city/county lines, rivers) as much as possible, so that, as much as possible, people who think of themselves as a community have the same representative.

    One of the things the Republicans did in Texas was to chop the city of Austin into four pieces: Austin is much more liberal than its suburbs, and the intended effect was that the city of Austin would have no representation (rather, its four representatives would all loathe all the values the residents of Austin hold dear). I could easily achieve the same effect with President Lindsay’s method, I’d just make sure that the crossing vertical and horizontal lines would chop a big city into four.

  • You live in a geographically small state, don’t you? Try to imagine what congressional districts would look like in a larger western or midwestern state with a couple of major metropolitan areas. Minnesota’s congressional districts would be crazy if they were an east-to-west strip.

  • The “Blue Dogs” are rather traitorous (I mean that according to Chris Bowers’ analysis, they have something on the order of 60% part loyalty as opposed to DLC 79% and regular democrats’ 83%) but this is a good idea.

    Living in Minnesota I can tell you that if you did vertical strips it would be bizarre at best.

  • The California politicians of both parties shared a mutual interest in incumbent protection and created safe, but extreme districts. I’d rather see the entire commission done entirely by people outside the political process but with a geographer’s sense of community and common interests.

  • Unlikely to be implemented but I suggest the best way is for both sides to agree on a mathematical formula to use to set the boundaries. Such a formula could take account of natural barriers etc. At least in this way everyone could discuss what the actual requirements for setting the boundaries are and people might be less likely to explicitly state that partisan advantage is one of them.

  • I was involved in a constitutional ballot initiative in 2000 to do this sort of thing in Arizona. It passed and the gerrymandering that used to take place in the Capitol basement with only a handful of legislators was brought out in the light. Now, it’s not a pretty process, no matter how you go about doing it. But our commission is required by the initiative to give credence to things such as existing political boundaries, communities of interest, and even political competitiveness. There are various Supreme Court rulings mandating things such as equal size, compactness, and continguity (these were also written into the AZ law). Maps are produced and released publicly, so that the citizens can weigh in.

    It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than it used to be.

  • Last time California redrew district lines, they had the added concern that Democrats wanted to carve up Gary Condit’s district so he had no place to run. (Remember, he’s the one who’s a natural suspect in Chandra Levy’s murder. There may never be enough evidence to indict him, but the House of Representatives is probably better off without him.) Of course, if his district had been competetive, he might have lost an election anyway.

    Currently only about 10% of seats in the House are considered competetive. Turnover has been less than it was in the Supreme Soviet. I saw that pointed out to my own congressman, years ago. He admitted, “That hurts.” Too bad that embarrassment isn’t general enough to motivate support for the Tanner bill.

  • Sad, Mike? Please.

    Everyone does this. It’s known, but the Dems are the only ones even trying to do anything about it, often against their own interests. On top of that, the GOP are the only ones playing the out-of-cycle redistricting. Several Democratic legislatures have chosen to pass on the opportunity to do the same, most notably Illinois.

    I live in Texas. DeLay’s redistricting cost us a great many tax dollars worth of special sessions, and dominated the agenda for a legislature that can’t manage to come up with a way to fund some of the worst schools in the nation.

    Yes, both parties gerrymander lines. But don’t even go all crocodile tears about how everyone’s equal but only the GOP gets called out for it. It’s rather disgusting.

  • I understand some of the objections here to the straight strip plan, which could of course be modified according to population density, while remaining consistent across the state to preclude gerrymandering even with the strips. The whole river objection is kind of dubious, there’s always mail-in voting available in those rare instances when that sort of thing would be an issue. In fact, mail-in only voting, like in Oregon, makes the most sense of all (which is why it’s not more prevalent) and saves a lot of money besides.
    Tell me, though, why would it be preferable to consider county and city lines? If I live in, say, the southern end of a long predominantly rural strip even though I live on the north end of a city, would that mean I’m not being properly represented? Why is that worse than if I’m a dyed in the wool liberal living in Orange County? Or like my good friend the aging Berkeley radical who happens to live in Fort Worth? Is it so difficult for a representative to get his/her mind around the fact that some citizen’s he’s representing are rural and some are urban, that some are liberal and some are conservative? They don’t all vote for him, you know, but he’s still supposed to take their best interests to heart. I don’t see why this is a problem.
    The more you tinker with a cut and dried plan, the more opportunities arise for stealth gerrymandering. Why not just eliminate it altogether and let the chips fall where they may? Joe Buck’s comment about how you could use my proposed system to gerrymander someplace like Austin is completely untrue. There would be no chance to modify it to suit anyone’s electoral whims. Let the chips fall where they may. It would be a hell of a lot better than any system that allows any sort of gerrymandering. Give the politicians an inch and they’ll take a mile.

  • I agree that Rep. Tanner’s plan is a substantial improvement over the current “system”, but others have raised accurate concerns that legislators and the two major political parties will hijack the process anyway. Given history, I would have to agree that such hijacking is more or less inevitable.

    Why don’t we go all the way in removing the legislature from the process? Proportional representation is one method. The voters of the state then decide how many Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, or whomever gets sent to Washington. Each party would provide a ranked candidate list. Various simple methods are available for dealing with remainders in the allocation process.

    Regional concerns within the state can be addressed either by the free-market method (a smart party would include a wide variety of candidates from different regions, backgrounds, ethnicities, etc.), or a state might be broken into “super-districts”. In larger states, the state might be broken into “super-districts” that would encompass a substantial fraction of the state (equivalent to perhaps five to seven current districts). Each party would provide a candidate list for each super-district, and the proportional representation would be based on each super-district.

    The only thing truly lost in such a method (other than gerrymandering) is the notion of a one-to-many relationship between the Representative and the voters of a given district. Given the low number of people who can name their Repreesntative under the current system, I cannot be sure that most people consider having one Representative all that important.

  • I have long thought that a balance of geographic and community-based redisricting was the way to go.

    Idea: redistrict a state starting from two groups of points simultaneously: the corners of a state moving inward, and the population centers moving outward. Geographically, allow natural dividers that tend to group and separate communities (mountains, rivers, etc.) to be the dividing lines between districts wherever possible.

    This would foster the sense of a district as a community. And it would clump people who have similar issues to address, lessening the possibility that their issues will get diluted.

    Of course there is much here that is open to debate (e.g. how big does an urban center need to be to be a starting point in the redistricting? And if it is slightly bigger than one seat, do you unfairly dilute the district’s impact if you split it in two (a la the Austin example mentioned above?).

    Still I think it is a good place to start.

  • Comments are closed.