The Indianapolis Star has an editorial today headlined "Blame gerrymandering for lack of competitive political races." It points out that "only a dozen of 100 state House races on the ballot this November are considered to be truly competitive. The figures aren't any cheerier in the Senate, where 25 seats are officially on the ballot but Republicans are certain to maintain control." More:
Blame the problem for the most part on gerrymandering, the practice of drawing legislative maps so that one party is given significant advantage over another in terms of the demographic makeup of districts. Gerrymandering makes it nearly impossible for a Democrat in a Republican district to win. And vice versa. * * *The NY Times had an editorial on Feb. 21st making the same point. It was headlined "Elections with no meaning." For quotes, see this Indiana Law Blog entry.Yet there are solutions, if legislative leaders from both major political parties had the courage and honesty to embrace them. New Jersey, for example, created a bipartisan commission to draw district maps. Iowa has established a nonpartisan commission. The result can be dramatic. In 2002, Iowa, with five U.S. House seats, had more competitive congressional races than California, which has 33 seats.
Voters in Marion County saw the principle in action last fall. A legal disagreement over boundaries in 25 City-County Council districts prompted the Indiana Supreme Court to draw its own map free of partisan interests. The result was a field full of strong candidates, close races in several districts and eventually a swing in control of the council from Republicans to Democrats for the first time.
Such change scares entrenched incumbents from both parties. But voters can demand that they be given true choices on Election Day by insisting that legislators put an end to gerrymandering.
Fair districts not only prompt more competition and higher turnout but also better government. Incumbents who actually have to work to win votes before Election Day are far more likely to listen and respond to constituents. In a nation built on the principle of democratic rule, 12 competitive races out of 100 isn't merely a sad number, it's shameful.
Late last month the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Pennsylvania redistricting case, Vieth v. Jubelirer, that may have all but closed the door on future court challenges to partisan gerrymandering. See Indiana Law Blog writeups here (4/29/04) and here (5/7/04).
The Indiana Supreme Court decision referred to in the Star editorial, where the Court itself redrew Marion County city-county council districts itself, is Peterson v. Borst (Ind.S.Ct. 3/19/03), which begins:
At issue in this appeal is the validity of the redistricting plan for the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana (“Council”), which was adopted in the final judgment of the Marion Superior Court, sitting en banc. We reverse because we conclude that the Superior Court’s adoption of a plan that has been uniformly supported by one major political party and uniformly opposed by the other is incompatible with applicable principles of both the appearance and fact of judicial independence and neutrality. Because of the emergency nature of this appeal, we adopt a plan that we have drawn with the consideration of only factors required by applicable federal and State law, and without consideration of party affiliation or incumbency. This plan will be in effect for the May 6, 2003, primary election unless a different plan is adopted by ordinance prior to March 26, 2003.(Note that our Supreme Court acted to draw the maps itself only because it appeared that no time remained for any other option.)
Something the Star does not point out in its editorial today is the difficulty of any change. As Vieth v. Jubelirer indicates, the courts are highly unlikely to act against political gerrymandering. This leaves the legistature as the only other alternative. But why would members or candidates with safe seats, such as the 88 out of 100 referenced by the Star, push for a diifferent system?
The Star says: "[V]oters can demand that they be given true choices on Election Day by insisting that legislators put an end to gerrymandering. Fair districts not only prompt more competition and higher turnout but also better government. Incumbents who actually have to work to win votes before Election Day are far more likely to listen and respond to constituents." But the Star does not explain how to get from here to there. The voters' ballots are their weapons, but carefully drawn districts have already made blunted any real possibility of putting the voters back in control of elections.
Posted by Marcia Oddi at May 23, 2004 09:10 PM