Since the previous decennial round of congressional and state legislative redistricting activity didn’t really end until last year, it’s hard to believe the next round is fast upon us. But take a look at Virginia, where today’s legislative elections have produced an astonishing $60 million in campaign expenditures, in no small part because it is the last state Senate election prior to the 2011 session that will draw new district lines (Democrats have a decent chance of retaking the chamber).

The last redistricting cycle was perhaps the most tumultuous in history. High tech gerrymandering techniques produced unlikely party majorities in some states, and a record number of non-competitive congressional and state legislative seats in others. Mid-decade re-redistrictings occurred in two states, and were attempted elsewhere. Legal challenges to redistricting plans became the norm almost everywhere. And for the first time, grassroots efforts to reform redistricting systems sprang up in a variety of states.

So what did we learn from this experience? And what are the prospects for redistricting reform prior to the next cycle?

On the legal front, a variety of federal court cases established the following precedents:

• There is no federal constitutional limitation on re-redistricting, though state constitutional bans on the practice are effective, as evidenced in Colorado, where a Republican mid-decade effort to redraw lines was struck down.
• Non-legislative redistricting maps (i.e., those imposed by courts after legislative deadlocks) are as constitutionally valid as those drawn by state legislatures.
• Federal courts are less likely than ever to interfere with political gerrymandering.

In the legislative arena, it’s worth noting that Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 without significant changes, a big factor in redistricting plans that affect minority voting strength, particularly in the South.

On the political front, two developments are definitely worth noting. First, the results of the 2006 elections, which “flipped” control of the U.S. House and a significant number of legislative chambers, dissipated some momentum for redistricting reform, particularly among Democrats who had supported a new line-drawing regime as the best avenue for overturning entrenched Republican power in Washington and in many states. The election results also demonstrated that even the shrewdest partisan gerrymandering schemes cannot resist a genuine “wave” election.

Just as importantly, grassroots redistricting reform efforts didn’t fare well in their few ballot box tests. Arizona voters approved a redistricting reform initiative in 2000, but the independent commission it set up turned out to be pro-GOP, and its map also ran afoul of minority voting rights.

Redistricting reform ballot initiatives in Ohio and California failed in 2006 (the former by a huge margin), and another, in hyper-gerrymandered Florida, never made it to the voters thanks to legal errors in its drafting.

Beyond law and politics, the experience of the last decade demonstrated the technical difficulty of designing redistricting reform schemes. The simplest reform-creating independent line-drawing commissions-has already been adopted by twelve states, with unimpressive results, though the importance of taking state legislative redistricting decisions out of the hands of the state legislators it affects should not be underestimated. “Criteria” redistricting schemes, which require maps producing more competitive districts, are clearly more effective, but have to be carefully drafted to avoid unintended consequences (e.g., plans creating a maximum number of “competitive” districts that one party is likely to carry in a good year).

One development of the last decade was the long-lost realization that Congress has the power to control its own redistricting. Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) has been championing legislation to require independent commissions and deference to traditional redistricting principles (such as respect for city and county boundaries) in state legislative decisions on House districts.

The best hope for redistricting reform is simply this: that Democrats will not forget the support they had for this idea in their winter of discontent, and that Republicans will abandon their general opposition to reform now that gerrymandering is not working in their favor.

Prior ballot failures notwithstanding, today’s stunning “wrong track” polling numbers, and the evidence of general disdain for incumbents from both parties, indicate that efforts to keep politicians choosing their own electorates will always have a strong base of public support. The future of redistricting reform depends on an alignment of well-designed plans with a public sentiment that is increasingly inclined to favor anything other than the status quo.

This entry was posted on 11.06.2007 at 7:12 am and is filed under Government Reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.