Monday, May 30, 2005

Gerrymandering

In NYT editorial column (5/30/05) warns us or incites us to support Mr. Tanner's bill for non-partisan redistricting. Read below:
***

Ending the Gerrymander Wars

Congressional redistricting has become a blood sport. Texas kicked off a new era in 2003 when it redrew its lines for a second time after the 2000 census to give the Republicans five more seats. Now, there could be similar midcensus redistricting in several other states. In these partisan machinations, voters are the losers. The new lines eliminate contested elections, and contribute to the bitterly divisive atmosphere in Washington. A new bill in Congress calls for national standards for drawing Congressional districts. It would vastly improve the functioning of our ailing democracy.

Gerrymandering has always been part of American politics, but it has reached disturbing new lows. Party operatives now use powerful computers to draw lines that guarantee their party as many seats as possible. The longstanding tradition that Congressional districts are redrawn only once every 10 years was obliterated in Texas in 2003, when Tom DeLay pushed through a partisan "re-redistricting." Democrats are now talking about doing the same thing in states they control, such as Illinois, New Mexico and Louisiana.

Partisan redistricting puts the interests of political parties ahead of the voters. The parties want districts they know they can win, and they have done a good job of creating them. In the last election, there were only a handful of competitive Congressional races; most races were decided by landslides.

The voters, however, are best served by competitive districts in which candidates need to work to win their votes. The decline of swing districts is having a corrosive effect on Congress, which is more than ever made up of members from the extremes of both parties, who do not need to appeal to voters in the middle for re-election.

Redistricting reform is difficult to achieve at the state level. Most state legislatures have a vested interest in the status quo. And in these partisan times, a party that controls a state government is likely to oppose any redistricting that gives Congressional seats to the other side. National standards are needed that would require every state to draw Congressional districts in a way that put the voters' interests first.

Representative John Tanner, a Tennessee Democrat, introduced a bill last week that would do just that. His bill would create nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state. The commissions would be prohibited from taking the voters' party affiliations or voting history into account when drawing lines. Instead, the bill would emphasize continuity of counties, municipalities and neighborhoods. The bill would also limit Congressional redistricting to once every 10 years.

It is no surprise that the bill's sponsor, Mr. Tanner, is a moderate Democrat from Tennessee. Southern Democrats, Northern Republicans and moderates from both parties and all regions are the ones being pushed out of Congress by partisan redistricting, and re-redistricting.

Drawing less partisan lines would reinvigorate the center in American politics, and make House members pay more attention to their constituents and less to their party leaders. That is why Mr. Tanner's bill is likely to have a hard time in today's Congress. It is also why it is important for everyone who wants to improve American politics to support it.

***

The editorial ends with an expected cynical tone when it points out that why Mr. Tanner is sponsoring this bill: he is one of the many moderates being pushed out of Congress. I am not sure if I should worry to much about this. But, it suggests that everytime a bill comes forward that seems to resemble the "right" thing to do for democracy that it is motivated, at bottom, by self-interest or self-preservation. So be it. I think its of paramount importance to support Tanner's "Fairness and Independence in Redistricting bill" This bill (H.R. 2642] is endorsed by John B. Anderson's (remember him?? 1980) Fair Vote: The Center for Voting and Democracy. You can read Anderson's piece on the necessity for national standards for redistricting here. I am too naive to know, yet, if Anderson's endorsement is the kiss of death--or, it the bill itself has no chance. Any thoughts?

When I think about Delay's outrageous redistricting scheme in 2003, I cannot believe that he got away with it. When all the democrates fled--to halt a vote--he had the Speaker Tom Craddick issues warrants for their arrests and tried to involve the Department for Homeland Security. Doesn't this just seem like madness to you?

For what its worth, I am now convinced that reformation of Gerrymandering is a crucial step toward building a stronger and better democracy. Thinking back on my blog that considers cooperation: unless we have fair elections, where the best candidate wins--and wins because he/she will best represent the people, we have no real say in Congress. And, we are letting the Republican machine remake the country over in its own image (which, to me, sounds a lot more like fascism).

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:17 PM

    Prof. Feminista,

    I was referred to this page by one of your students, and I'm so glad he did. I wrote my thesis at G'burg on the effects that partisan redistricting has on female Republican congressional candidates. You are right; the issue is a very important -- and infuriating -- one that screams for reformation. Not only are moderates being killed off by the skewed practice, but so are women (arguably the most moderate of all candidates).

    I hadn't yet heard of this particular bill, but I am very curious to look at it further. There is a growing number of non-partisan or bi-partisan plans across the country, and they are making some progress. The best example I can think of is Iowa, which gave responsibility for re-drawing district lines to a non-governmental commission and gave it several rules that it must follow (line-drawers couldn't be affiliated with public office in any capacity, towns couldn't be split to form districts, partisan statistics/voting histories for the different areas couldn't be made available to the commission, etc.) You should continue to look into this.

    Keep up the good work!
    Katy.

    PS -- You may remember me as the poli sci major who showed up to the philosophy thesis presentations and was the complete neophyte, so obviously outside of her realm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember you Katy, I am glad you posted. I wonder what you know or think of the Governator's plan to give the redistricting to retired judges?

    I got to tell ya, this stuff makes me weary.

    What are you up to these days?

    Did you read Tom's guest blog?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:12 PM

    I think that the Gubernator's proposal is a step in the right direction, but not far enough. In an ideal world, retired judges would be non-partisan, but how do we enforce that? I fail to see any checks like that in the plan. The major problem that I have with giving the job to judges is the simple fact that these hypothetical men and women may be judiciary geniuses, but are judges necessarily qualified to draw district lines? What do they know about surveying and geography and the science of population? I would much rather see people who are experts in that field be the ones who are given the charge.

    If you are interested, I'd be happy to send you a copy of my thesis and would love to hear your feedback.

    I am currently working in Harrisburg and trying to adjust to post-college life. So much fun!

    Katy
    PS -- I did read Tom's post, and I know the girl he's talking about. So frustrating!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harrisburg sounds like fun! Are you meeting new and cool people? What are you doing?

    ReplyDelete