Gerrymandering
The Supreme Court heard arguments the other day about the mid-decade, Tom Delay lead, redistricting of the Texas congressional districts. Republicans won 21 of 32 congressional districts after the redistricting. Before, under the democratic plan of 2000, they had 15 of 32. In both congressional elections, total Republican votes for the house of representatives was around 60% (59 one time and low 60's the other). I figured I'd throw out my thoughts on the subject in general and on the current issue.
First of all, I think it should be incumbent upon state legislatures to draw maps that create rectangular districts that create districts that actually represent a region of a state. The intention of our system was to have local communities represented in Congress. Iowa is an excellent example of this. There is one district around Des Moines and 4 others as large rectangles in the four corners of the state. Wisconsin's is not bad either. If you look at the old and new Texas plans, they have 300 mile long districts that trace only party allegiance.
All of that being said, The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is ok provided that it 1) Doesn't dilute minority voting strength and 2) Is not "unduely" partisan. Working within that framework, I can endorse the new Texas plan for 2 reasons. First, after an election under the new plan, the same number of Hispanic Reps. existed and one new "black" district was created... i.e. it was at least neutral toward minorities. Second, 60% (the share of Republican vote in Texas) is closer to 21/32 than 15/32. In other words, this new gerrymander is not as bad as the old one. If the old one passed constitutional muster, surely this one must.
The other issue, that this was done mid-decade, is a valid one. Normally a state only redistricts immediately after a census. I don't like the precedent that after every state legislative election one redistricts for a more favorable result. However, since this is a gerrymander to fix a worse gerrymander, I can live with a second redistricting in 10 years. I would classify myself as a moderate to weak supporter of the measure.
First of all, I think it should be incumbent upon state legislatures to draw maps that create rectangular districts that create districts that actually represent a region of a state. The intention of our system was to have local communities represented in Congress. Iowa is an excellent example of this. There is one district around Des Moines and 4 others as large rectangles in the four corners of the state. Wisconsin's is not bad either. If you look at the old and new Texas plans, they have 300 mile long districts that trace only party allegiance.
All of that being said, The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is ok provided that it 1) Doesn't dilute minority voting strength and 2) Is not "unduely" partisan. Working within that framework, I can endorse the new Texas plan for 2 reasons. First, after an election under the new plan, the same number of Hispanic Reps. existed and one new "black" district was created... i.e. it was at least neutral toward minorities. Second, 60% (the share of Republican vote in Texas) is closer to 21/32 than 15/32. In other words, this new gerrymander is not as bad as the old one. If the old one passed constitutional muster, surely this one must.
The other issue, that this was done mid-decade, is a valid one. Normally a state only redistricts immediately after a census. I don't like the precedent that after every state legislative election one redistricts for a more favorable result. However, since this is a gerrymander to fix a worse gerrymander, I can live with a second redistricting in 10 years. I would classify myself as a moderate to weak supporter of the measure.