| Re-redistricting is an ugly power grab
By Rob Richie and Steven Hill
It's baaa-ack. Just when Texas state legislators thought
it safe to be home for awhile, Gov. Rick Perry has called again for
congressional redistricting in a special session. Given the high stakes
involved, expect more fireworks like Democratic legislators' midnight
escape to Oklahoma last month to kill earlier efforts to redraw district
lines.
For many Americans the fierce partisan battle over
redistricting must seem far out of proportion to its importance,
especially when compared to pressing issues like taxes, education and
jobs. But policy-making is grounded in the electoral structures that
determine representation, and no part of that structure is more important
than the legislative district lines that carve up the state and determine
local partisan majorities.
Just ask House Majority leader Tom DeLay, who openly
promotes Texas "re-redistricting." In 1991, Texas Democrats
gerrymandered DeLay and his fellow Republicans so effectively that they
took more than two-thirds of seats with only half the votes. The chief
architect of that plan -- one of three state legislators on redistricting
committees to win newly-created seats -- was Congresswoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson, who admitted in 1997 that the redistricting process "is not
one of kindness.
It is not one of sharing. It is a power grab."
Whoever controls redistricting -- technically state
legislators, but in practice a small number of political leaders and
consultants -- has the God-like powers to guarantee not only which party
wins most seats, but also to make or break individual political careers.
The computer tools are increasingly powerful, using tactics like
"packing" and "cracking": pack as many opponents into
as few districts as possible, or crack an opponent's political base into
several districts.
It was bad enough when redistricting occurred only at
the start of each decade, but now the greedy partisan grab has spurred a
new phenomenon -- mid-decade "re-redistricting." Recently
Colorado Republicans jammed through a revised plan to shore up their one
vulnerable incumbent. Now Texas Republicans have decided that gaining as
many as seven additional seats is worth any editorial outcry and partisan
fury that their upcoming power grab will inspire.
Does redistricting make a difference? You bet it does.
Virginia Democrats in 2001 won their first gubernatorial race since 1989.
But Republicans went from barely controlling the statehouse to a
two-thirds majority. How? That's right -- Republicans drew the district
lines before the election.
In many states, one party stuck it to the other in
redistricting. Take Florida, where Democrats are strong enough to hold
both U.S. Senate seats and gain a virtual tie in the presidential race.
But with full control of drawing the district lines, Republicans hold an
overwhelming 18 of 25 U.S. House seats. In 2002 Maryland Democrats picked
up two of the state's Republicans' four U.S. House seats as a direct
result of redistricting.
However dangerous to democracy such partisan power grabs
are, however, the problem is more fundamental and sweeping. The real story
of the last redistricting cycle was that both parties generally colluded
in a crass way to take on their real enemy: the voters. "Incumbent
protection" was raised to a whole new level.
The result was that in 2002, just four incumbents -- the
fewest in history -- lost to non-incumbent challengers. In California,
every single incumbent won by landslide margins. It was no coincidence
that Democratic incumbents forked over $20,000 apiece to the redistricting
consultant to draw them a safe seat, and that the consultant was the
brother of one of the incumbents. To buy their cooperation, Republican
incumbents were given safe seats too. California voters were the real
losers.
The real problem is the very power we grant legislators.
If power corrupts, giving legislators the chance to grab power is
inevitably corrupting. We hardly should be surprised that our leaders take
advantage of their power to control their own electoral destiny. The blame
falls on those who wring their hands but take no action to fight for rule
changes to put the public interest in redistricting over partisan
interest.
Congress has full authority to set national standards
that could take redistricting out of the hands of incumbents and establish
independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions, or at least curb the
most flagrant abuses of gerrymandering. Unfortunately, it's been years
since a single bill has been proposed to provide a nonpartisan approach to
redistricting.
It's high time to admit that legislators cannot be both
for democracy and for the rigging of that democracy. Following on the
heels of the 2000 election debacle, partisan redistricting only further
undermines confidence in our political system.
Rob Richie is the executive director of the
Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org). Steven Hill is
the Center's senior analyst, and author of "Fixing Elections: The
Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics" (Routledge Press,
www.FixingElections.com). |
