I have found the discussion in this forum on district reapportionment to be of substance and potentially beneficial to the state and national dialogue on how to reform, revolutionize or continue the status-quo of reapportionment. The comment I found to be most grounding came from Craig, that as American citizens, “We would like to think that in a democracy, we the voters choose our politicians, but in the redistricting process, the politicians choose the voters.” I think this is a truthful, pointed comment on an incredibly fundamental and in many ways disturbing contradiction within our current legislative process. In my opinion, serious reforms need to be taken on a national level.
In a Detroit Free Press article [1] – that I think was referenced by someone else as well – potential solutions were suggested. Craig Ruff, a senior policy fellow at Lansing’s Public Sector Consultants, created a projection map of congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census. Though I do not know his political leanings or his background, I really appreciated the fact that of his criteria for the map (population estimates, compactness, sanctity of county lines), partisan advantage was not included. In the postings of my classmates, a reoccurring suggestion for reapportionment reform related directly to party lines and somehow creating “50/50” districting, which is inherently impossible and, in an indirect way, playing into partisan politics. 50/50 districting would take into account only those who self-identify and/or register in one of those two parties, which many voters do not, setting up even more logistical problems.
An additional suggestion was brought up in the Freep article: Jocelyn Benson is working in cooperation with the Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration and the Michigan Redistricting Collaborative to launch the Michigan Redistricting Competition in which citizens can enter their own congressional districting map to be scored and forwarded to the Legislature. While I welcome the intention of Ruff’s map and Benson’s competition – “Make redistricting about assuring equal representation for Michigan citizens rather than about protecting politicians” – I feel that neither really address the structural, systemic issues related to needed redistricting procedural reform.
Historically in Michigan, it has been the Legislature that draws up a statute of reapportionment every ten years and votes on the measure. An op-ed by Norman Williams, an Oregon journalist, makes an excellent point: “Of course, allowing legislatures to draw their own district lines is akin to permitting foxes to guard the henhouse” [2]. This has led to racial gerrymandering, as discussed in this forum at length, and now blatant partisan gerrymandering. There is no competition between parties and therefore no real competition beyond primary elections, which hurts both the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process. Williams states, “Competitive elections are not only fair to both parties; they are the hallmark of a healthy and mature democracy.”
This phenomenon is not exclusive to Michigan as states across the country are reexamining their reapportionment processes. An article about Pennsylvania [3], which is in a similar situation as Michigan in that they are set to lose a congressional seat, discusses the contradictions within their own state on the matter of redistricting state v. national congressional seats: “Congressional redistricting is done by the regular legislative process: a bill is passed and a statute is created. For state legislative seats however there is this Commission under article two of the state constitution which creates a five-member Commission: two from each party to be appointed by the legislative leaders and a fifth person appointed by those four.” Commenting on this process, the article states that the current system is inherently an “insider’s game” that is found all across the nation in legislative politics. From the article: “We tend to elect the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans and in those situations the party loyalties tend to perpetuate themselves when they get elected to the legislature. That makes it much harder to compromise because the most extreme wing of the parties tends to prevail in elections.” The article goes on to say that new computer systems are adding to this highly-partisan environment as legislators utilize these programs to select their voters.
Though I recognize the role that technology can and does play in drawing district lines, I am wary to give that task entirely over to gigantic data bases and number-crunching computer systems. Sophisticated mapping tools have led to the designing of anti-competitive districts with the focus of maximizing partisan power and reelection chances, giving an incredibly unfair advantage to the party in power at the time of redistricting and incumbents in all parties. I do not believe that there are ways to quantify or fully take into account all of that factors that ought to be considered in reapportionment. Even if a program were possible, I would still like to see our energies going toward finding human compromise rather than relying on technology as it is apparent we need more work in our human-to-human relations in politics.
A 2002 article in The Economist touches on the impact of technology in the districting process – 2002! Imagine that! [4] The article is written in the wake of the 2000 U.S. presidential election in which the almost exactly 50-50 split in voters exposed some serious concerns with the changing tides of redistricting and its correlation with the advent of new technologies. From the article:
“First, new software has made it easier to draw more “reliable” electoral maps – i.e. to be more exact in your partisanship. Until the 1990s, legislators had to draw districts using coloured pens on acetate sheets spread out on big maps on the floor. Computers appeared in the 1990s, but only big, sophisticated ones could handle the demographic data, putting the cost beyond all but a few states. Now the Census Bureau puts out digitized maps, called TIGER/Line files. New geographic information systems for mapping and anaylising demographic data cost only a few thousand dollars, work on ordinary Windows operating systems, and can draw up partisan maps automatically. This has turned gerrymandering – sorry, redistricting – from an art into a science. Second the 50-50 split in the 2000 election has changed what the parties want from redistricting. Under the old plans, you maximized your seats by drawing up districts which you would win narrowly. That was risky, because it gave your opponents a chance. Now the parties have adopted a policy of safety first. Because the House of Representatives is so closely balanced, legislatures try to maximize the number of safe seats for each side, drawing competitive districts only if they cannot avoid it.”
So, what can be done? The article goes on to discuss the ways in which states are already (in 2002) using alternative systems. For example, in Iowa, “Civil servants draw new lines without reference to incumbents or regional voting patterns…[while] five other states hand redistricting authority over to bipartisan commissions, sometimes with a neutral tie-breaker approved by both parties.” As admitted by the article, neither system is without flaws but on the same coin either would work better than the one in existence now as either remove debates about redistricting from legislature, leaving them “free to get on undistracted with their proper business, such as crafting budgets.” The states that utilize these systems have shown marked differences in the number of competitive House races compared to other states.
With all the talk about partisan or non-partisan assessment in drawing district lines, I would like to bring in a concept discussed last semester in my State and Local Government course (also with Dr. Haynes). We talked at length about the ways in which districts could be delineated, including the idea of a 50-50 split or a strictly non-partisan head count, but we also discussed the need to address or at least acknowledge the very different interests of rural, suburban and urban areas and how these interests play into the electoral process, especially in Michigan, which has such great diversity between the three settings. Though, akin to the 50-50 split notion, creating totally balanced city-country-suburbs split in every district is impossible, it would be interesting to see how this and other similar aspects could be considered. Is this a viable consideration?
Everything that I researched on this matter made sure to mention this truism: without popular pressure, no legislator will willingly subject themselves to a competitive election and/or cede redistricting power to a bipartisan or non-partisan process. Changes on the state level would like require a new law or amendment to the state constitution, both measures controlled by legislators. Every time the proverbial pendulum swings, the party in power wants to retain the status-quo in redistricting while the minority party cries foul play. It is sometimes difficult to see an end to the madness but I think having this sort of dialogue, as stated, is incredibly valuable to get the ball rolling toward fairness, transparency and an atmosphere of more collaboration – rather than partisan combativeness – within our legislatures.
1. “Editorial: Where to draw the lines. Redistricting process needs fresh ideas.” Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20110130/OPINION01/101300465/1053/SPORTS05/Editorial-Where-draw-lines?odyssey=nav|head
2. “Let’s take the foxes out of the legislative henhouse.” Norman Williams. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/01/lets_take_the_foxes_out_of_the.html
3. “Hoping for reform in who draws new district lines.” Newsworks. http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/10350-03lfdistrict
4. “How to rig an election: In a normal democracy, voters choose their representatives. In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way around.” The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/1099030?story_id=1099030
No comments:
Post a Comment