I strongly agree with the Washington Post editorial board on this:
For far too long, the party in power has taken advantage of the opportunity to redraw districts to squeeze out opposition incumbents and maximize the prospects of its party's candidates. Such an approach -- and Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame -- has led to political maps that distort the voice and will of the voters for the sake of the parties.With the redrawing of Virginia's 140 state legislative and 11 congressional districts still a few years off, now is the time to start talking about how that will be done. A good place to start is with consideration of a measure that Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria) plans to reintroduce in 2008. Mr. Moran's proposal calls for the creation of a bipartisan commission, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, to handle the redistricting. Republicans embraced a similar approach in 1992 when their party was in the minority. Democrats welcomed the legislation in the most recent legislative session, when Republicans controlled both chambers of the General Assembly.
I'm glad that Democrats "welcomed the legislation in the most recent legislative session" when Republicans were in charge. Now that Democrats control the State Senate, I hope that they don't change their tune for the worse, because this is an important issue of principle. Voting in this country is supposed to be "one person one vote." It's also supposed to be competitive. Gerrymandered districts are a fundamental assault on these principles, a blatant and direct effort to control the outcome of elections, mainly as a method of "incumbent protection."
Gerrymandering also means that your vote, if you live in a totally safe Democratic district, is essentially meaningless, since there's ZERO chance that your delegate or state senator will be defeated in the general election. In contrast, if you happen to live in one of the few competitive districts, your vote will be very important and likely will be courted by both political parties. In short, your vote matters infinitely more if you live in a competitive district than if you live in an "incumbent protection" district. This is NOT the way to run a Democracy.
While we're at it, how about campaign finance reform. Frankly, the amount of money spent on elections in Virginia is obscene and out of control. How is it helpful for millions of dollars to pour in during the closing weeks of elections in order to run attack ads on broadcast TV? Is that edifying, informative, productive in any way? I don't think so.
[UPDATE: This paper argues that "There is no evidence that redistricting by nonpartisan redistricting commissions or courts resulted in more competitive districts than redistricting by partisan state legislatures." Are they right? Are advocates (like me) of non-partisan redistricting wrong? If redistricting isn't the cause of decreasingly competitiveness of elections, what is? Here's more from the same paper:
...declining competition in U.S. House elections is explained by two major factors: a shift in the partisan composition of House districts and a decline in the ability of challengers to compete financially with incumbents. Since the 1970s, and especially since 1992, there has been a substantial increase in partisan polarization among House districts. The number of marginal districts has been declining while the number of districts that are safe for one party has been increasing. Redistricting appears to have little or nothing to do with this trend: almost all of the change in district partisanship has occurred between redistricting cycles.
If we want to do non-partisan redistricting, it needs to be done on a nationwide basis.
Other states have already implemented some form of non-partisan redistricting. You can look at a list here. And the National Conference of State Legislatures has a good deal of information on the topic.
Last, I would just like to restate your essential argument to exemplify a point. Essentially, you are saying other people are bad, so we shouldn't be good. Only when everyone is good, should we also be good.
Put some truly independent folks in a room with a computer loaded up with census data only. Tell them what the allowable population variance is - and then tell them they can take natural boundaries (like rivers) into account, but should draw districts as square as possible.
Let the chips fall where they will. The current system gives us far too many "safe" districts for both parties - which enables each side to put their political extremes in them, because they know they will win anyway. The leftovers are a handful of in-play districts - which, as we just saw, then attract more money than candidates know what do to with.
Anyone else see Sen. Saslaw's comments in the Daily Progress? They don't bode well for this:
"Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Reston, will chair the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. She takes the gavel from Sen. Stephen H. Martin, R-Chesterfield.
One bill that will go to Howell's committee is Sen. R. Creigh Deeds' measure to switch Virginia from a partisan to a non-partisan system of redistricting.
Deeds, a Bath County Democrat whose 25th District includes Charlottesville and most of Albemarle County, said he does not know how that bill will fare now that Democrats control the Senate.
Saslaw hinted it might not fare so well, while Whipple, who chairs the Senate Democratic Caucus, said she still would strongly support it.
"A lot of us will probably lose interest in that," Saslaw said of Deeds' redistricting bill, which passed the Senate for the first time this year and was killed in the House Privileges and Elections Committee.
Moreover, unless a state is overall split close to 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, it's mathematically impossible for all the districts to be competitive.
I'm increasingly feeling that there is no real solution to the problems of redistricting unless we're able to get away from single-member districts and introduce multimember districts with some sort of voting reform like instant runoff.
As for state level, if some equitable mechanism can be created to do non-partisan redistricting a la Iowa or Arizona, that may be worth looking at. But, again, Republicans will not agree to any compromise that does not allow them to override the rules when/if they are in the majority (or, they'll just break 'em or re-write the rules if they can). Furthermore, I am deeply, DEEPLY suspicious of elites running the show from behind the scenes as if they're all solons compared to we, the people.
Democracy is inherently messy. Fact is, the current system is subject to the tyranny of little minds. But I am not convinced the alternative would not be worst.
At the very least, I am for a robust debate of these issues by our legislators and citizens -- I think we can all agree on that.
1) I don't know that having a "bipartisan" commission solves this problem -- it depends on who these commissioners are. In California, "bipartisan" redistricting results in all 55 districts stacked for one party or the other (and if you wonder why the Republican delegation from California is so corrupt, it's because they are basically unchallengable, although the last two cycles have been changing that).
2) I just don't think Democrats can declare unilateral detantes with Republicans right now -- there is no set of unwritten rules, traditions, written rules, laws, or constitutional principles that they will not break in pursuit of and to hold on to power.
Re: #1. I believe only Arizona and Iowa have non-partisan redistricting commissions. There are only so many ways you can split these states up because, in the former, all the population is in Phoenix/Mesa/burbs and Tucson/burbs, while Iowa's population is more evenly distributed (and, in any event, Iowa will have only 4 seats after the next reapportionment).
Re: #2. I lived in Texas (Austin) when the re-redistricting occurred, the single greatest political atrocity I have ever seen when you take everything into account, and the event that most convinced me to be a Democrat. Republicans also re-redistricted in Colorado and Georgia, redrawing lines mid-decade to try and get rid of particular Democrats. Republicans also controlled the line-drawing in Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in 2001 -- those three states plus Texas have the most atrocious districts you've ever seen, with blacks packed into ridiculous districts to guarantee minority majority districts as prescribed by law, but in the process laughing at the intent of the law (which is equal representation for blacks and Hispanics).
During the Texas re-redistricting (I went to some of the hearings in Austin at the Capitol), the entire black population of Ft. Worth and between Dallas and Ft. Worth was illegally disenfranchised. So were blacks in Beaumont and East Texas. This plan should never have been given pre-clearance, but we know what was going on in the Justice Department. The Republicans drew the most aggressive map possible to maximize the advantage gained in their moment of maximum political advantage. The courts eventually unpacked one egregrious south Texas racial gerrymander, resulting in Ciro Rodriguez' election last December, but the whole process was an abomination.
---
Now, do I think Democrats should be this ruthless and do re-redistricting? No. But now is not the time to meet half-way, either. In the most populous states, only Michigan and maybe Illinois have what I would deem to be "fair" districting, overall. Until we come up with federal guidelines for re-districting that take into account natural political boundaries, geography, compactness, contiguity, communities of interest, etc., and do so while honestly attempting to live by the law of the Voting Rights Act, I am don't think Democrats in Virginia should back down. Two rights don't make a wrong, but neither does bringing a knife to a gun fight. Seeing what the Republican party has done to our nation and state over the last eight years, I am for counter-punching, and hard.
Even with the bad districts the R's drew, Democrats are surging. Let us keep surging. And if, in 2009, we control the whole kit and kaboodge (Guv's mansion hold, HoD takeover), we can decide to try and draw, from a strong, earned majority, districts that reflect that majority more fairly than the R's did while not being overly vindictive, which would probably naturally add a few more seats to the D's in future elections.
But beyond that, they have shown they don't know or care to know the meaning of the word compromise. Compromise on taxes and roads? No -- the HoD will just vote 'no' on everything the next two years. Compromise on ending the war? No -- George Bush and the Republican Senate don't do these things. Instead, they'll continue to demonize and obstruct, and laugh while we play fair. No more.
It seems that many Dems hate political power. It seems to embarrass them. After a decade of numerous loses at every level of government, against an unfair redistrictng that the REPUBS intentionally forced on them, these DEMS are ready to give it all back.
Just consider the dominant Republican issues: anti-immigrant, pro-life, unlimited growth, etc. By giving them a level playing field with bipartisan redistrictng, you'll be giving them better chances of getting elected so that they can pursue these hateful policies.
I say, redistrict so that DEMS will have the better winning odds, even if it means shutting the Republicans out for the next dcade.
Its what a political party is all about: securing and maintaining political power.
If we could be confident of control of both houses, we might see this differently.
Plus, it's just the right thing to do. For far too long we have based districts on politics rather than the economic needs and cultural similarites of peoples. For example, the Second Congressional District should be Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as the economies are interdependent on each other, much more so than the Beach and the Eastern Shore. Non-partisan redistricting is about putting people before power. And if we can't do that, then we don't deserve a majority.
Look, we claim to live in a democracy, yet well over 90% of U.S. Congressmen are regularly re-elected. No wonder the rest of the world sees us as a bunch of hypocrites.
One small caveat -- I'm not so sure that a bipartisan commission is the answer, since that may simply lead to a bunch of horse-trading and backroom deals. I'd prefer a non-partisan commission with a bunch of geeky Poli Sci professors and computer whizzes calling the shots.
While Democrats are always ready to negotiate and compromise, Republicans have proven in the last 10 years that they will stall the whole government if they don't get their way. Since the most sane Republicans have been steadily leaving the party, only the most radical hardliners are left. These would be the people that we will end up negotiating.
Really, why should any Democrat today believe that any Republican in government will act in good faith? Don't we get weekly stories on how our non partisan government agency after government agency was corrupted by political hacks? Even our justice department was corrupted by people who should have known better.
Even the justices of the supreme court played politics and mislead congress during hearings about their positions on controversial issues. As soon as they got the job, they began voting in an brazenly partisan way.
Now, remind me again why should we trust them?
Remember, just because we call a committee nonpartisan or bipartisan doesn't mean that they will actually behave as such. All of the schemes that I have heard so far have the potential for party-line rigging. Committees of legislators or judges are flawed because the people in them have party sympathies.
Frankly, the only way that I see fair representation is by doing away with districts and having proportional representation. And this is not happening.
The sneakiness of both sides, when they're allowed to get away with it, is exactly why we need to strengthen the rules. Let's remember that in history, there have been Democratic versions of Tom Delay too, like the political bosses that once ruled such cities as Chicago, New York and Boston.
Personally, I'd rather have a real democracy in which Repubs sometimes win than a shell of a democracy jerry-rigged to favor my side.
I appear to be in the minority in this debate here at RK (which is fine by me -- I have no problem defending an unpopular POV) along with a few others, but I also consider myself an American first, a progressive second, and a partisan third (and, not that it matters, but a Hamilton-Lincoln Federalist as such would be the label that I most adhere to, which in my mind in today's political climate equals a Democrat).
I believe strongly in playing by the rules and competing in the marketplace of ideas and ideals. What I don't believe is that not agreeing to 'reform' in general, without hearing what such 'reform' might entail, makes me someone that puts party above country. Moreover, I vehemently disagree with the view that you give up idealism and adherence to the American idea of democracy by soberly acknowledging the bad faith exhibited by the other side for the past 8 years.
---
There are obviously two camps breaking out here in this thread. I would never question the good faith of those on the other side of me in this argument. So, make an argument. Why am I, or Hugo, or snolan, etc., wrong?
What I am doing is expressing support for non-partisan redistricting in the interest of advancing good legislation on the issue. And what I am arguing against is the instinct to simply give up on or dismiss this issue because so many Republicans don't play fair.
In too many ways, from campaign finance to the Electoral College to redistricting, our democratic system is close to broken, and so, even while we compete in this system, we also need to work hard to fix it.
Your basic premise that the Republicans are not likely to follow the "do the right thing" sentiments of some of the Democrats here who support bipartisan redistricting reflects the correct reality. For the bipartisan Democrats, their reality is in parallel universe where only angels are involved in politics.
Moreover, isn't it a repudiation of the basic charter of the Democratic Party of Virginia which declares that the purpose of the party is to elect Democrats? If a redistricting plan is bipartisan and is drawn without regard for the political leanings of the voters in the districts and precincts, doesn't such a plan violate the charter by giving more or less equal chances to Republicans to be elected? To be true to our charter, we must protect our own political interests by favoring a redistricting plan that favors Democrats.
Also, we must keep in mind that the Democratic Party has a wide variety of interests to protect by doing everything it can to elect Democrats. We have unions, minority groups, women's groups, economic groups, business groups, professionals like lawyer, and others who depend on us to look out for them.
Then there are the party activists who do the hard work to elect Democrats. Why would we want to make their jobs harder by designing districts that don't help them? On the contrary, we should reward them, not punish, for their efforts over the last ten years by giving them districts in which they can achieve more Democratic victories.
Perhaps folks seeking bipartisanship in redistricting should join an organization like Common Cause or the League of Women Voters, both of which have non-partisan ambitions.
Ultimately, what you're advancing here is an argument that "the ends justify the means" -- that, in order to advance the party that we both agree is superior, it's okay to bend the rules of democracy to favor them. Once we start down this slippery slope, where will it end? Are there other rules you're willing to bend or break just to elect Democrats?
The fact is, the means matter too. I believe in a competitive political system, which is exactly what democracy is supposed to be. Rather than gaming the democratic system, we need to fix it.
Uncompetitive districts have many detrimental aspects. Politicians who know they're going to be elected regardless of what they do are more likely to become unresponsive and sometimes corrupt. I'm not going to name names, but even here in the great state of Virginia, we have a few Democratic officeholders who we all know are not the best and the brightest, but who cling to their position because they're in a safe district. Can't we try to do any better than that?
Bi-Partisan leads to the sham that has been our presidential debates the last few cycles. Non-partisan might include a more open format, whith questions from way out in left and right field. Those oddball questions may not be mainstream, but they are pertinent, and so are the candidate's responses. How a mainstream candidate handles a surprise ideal from either fringe is far more useful information than anything on their pre-arranged and agreed on scripted crap questions.
Likewise, the ideas of Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and Constitutionalists should be heard for re-districting. Fresh blood an novel ideas may offer solutions to some rather troublesome problems.
Just like we need immigration for new ideas, fresh perspectives; we need third parties and non-aligned citizen participation.
These groups can look out for themselves better than Democrats. Moreover, they know how to get their worthwhile ideas into the mainstream.
If these other political parties had sensible ideas, we will hear about them sooner or later.
Besides, these other political parties, who know about political power, would love to participate in the next redistricting, and carve out districts that favor their candidates. If this should happen, I suspect that a candidate from the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, or Constitutionalists, would likely take an elected office away from a good Democrat.