Foxes Building the Henhouse

 

Not quite, Jon. Dull campaign-finance reformers at least get to talk about big piles of sweaty money. If you really want to bore the public with an issue vital to our democracy, try convincing them to pay attention to legislative redistricting. The partisan deal-making circus that occurs after every national census doesn't include sex, drugs, bloodshed or cash (that we know of, anyway), which means most of you, including the few who'll bother to vote next November, aren't paying attention.

Too bad. It's a hilarious little story. For sheer absurdity, few things match watching Democrats and Republicans around the country trade "principled positions" on redistricting issues based solely on whether their party pulls the strings in a given state.

In North Carolina, for instance, we've watched Democrats carefully create district maps that make it tougher for Republicans to gain seats in the House and Senate. Naturally, the Republicans sued, claiming the maps violate a provision in the state constitution that requires counties be kept intact. The Dems respond that the no-split-counties rule was superceded long ago by Justice Department and federal court decisions, and is thus a "dead letter" that can safely be ignored. The state Supreme Court will hear the case next month. If the Democrats lose, look for them to appeal to the feds.

Meanwhile, in states where Republicans control the legislature -- Virginia and South Carolina come to mind -- it's Democrats who are suing after being shut out by Republican-drawn maps.

"It does get a bit funny," says Dr. Ted Arrington, chair of the political science department at UNC-Charlotte and a specialist in voting behavior who testifies regularly in redistricting cases. "Just last month I was an expert witness for the Republicans in South Carolina; they're making exactly the opposite argument that the Republicans here are making. Down there, it's the Democrats who are saying you have to keep counties together and the Republicans who say county boundaries really don't matter."

Welcome to the "principled" world of redistricting.

Yes, the state constitution makes a difference, at least enough to get the Supreme Court's attention. But what NC Republicans aren't telling you is that their alternative district map guarantees them the same domination of the House and Senate that the Democrats are trying to grab.

"Trust me, the Republicans have already done the math," says Arrington. "If they win in Supreme Court and the districts are drawn the way the Republicans are saying they have to be drawn, it's possible Republicans could win 60 percent of the seats while getting only 48 to 49 percent -- less than half -- of the total votes."

"You think they're doing this for the principle of not dividing counties?" he asks, laughing. "Come on. Give me a break."

"Redistricting is an absurdly political process," says Jesse Rutledge, associate director of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education, a group dedicated to improving the state's election system. "Politicians are choosing their voters instead of the other way around. It's the reverse of how democracy is supposed to work."

A system that allows candidates to create the very districts in which they run yields depressingly predictable results; in case you haven't heard, 23 incumbents in the 50-seat Senate and 48 in the 120-seat House face no opposition at all this year. That's double the number of uncontested races North Carolina saw in 2000.

"Less competitive races are a growing national trend," says Rob Ritchie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and Democracy. "Even in states where legislatures are split between the two parties, you typically see handshake deals that give each party a number of safe districts."

The problem has gotten worse with the development of sophisticated software that makes it easier for political consultants to analyze populations down to the level of individual streets. The solution, according to Ritchie, is for states to take the process out of the hands of legislators by creating independent redistricting commissions made up of Democratic, Republican and independent voters. A handful of states has already begun experimenting with that approach.

"Iowa and Arizona, for example, have redistricting commissions with clear criteria," Ritchie says. "It doesn't matter who draws the maps, since you can objectively measure which plan fits the criteria best."

Arizona voters forced legislators' hands with a statewide referendum approving an independent commission. That option isn't available here in North Carolina, so any proposal will have to first make it through the state legislature.

Don't hold your breath. For years state Republicans have been sponsoring redistricting commission bills; the most recent would have created a nine-member panel appointed by the governor, Supreme Court, and state House and Senate leaders. Sure, the sponsors failed to reserve seats on their commission for the growing number of the state's voters who are unaffiliated with either major party (now at 16 percent and still rising, according to state Board of Elections head Gary Bartlett), but aside from that cute bit of two-party blindness, the bill was a decent starting point.

Of course it went nowhere. The state's leading Democrats, for obvious reasons, are vehemently opposed to the idea of an appointed group that would take redistricting out of their control.

"It's sickening," says Republican Sen. Patrick Ballantine, who was one of the bill's sponsors and is now a plaintiff in the redistricting lawsuit before the Supreme Court. "Legislators should not be drawing their own districts. It turns democracy on its head."

"Name me one state where Republicans who aren't the minority party have introduced a bill to create a redistricting commission," counters Sen. Brad Miller, head of the Democrats' redistricting effort. "Did we take partisan considerations into account? Yes, we did. But our maps are fair; they have partisan balance. Republican plans in other states are far more cutthroat than this one."

Even if that's true, it remains irrelevant to the deeper issue: the fundamental conflict of interest that arises when lawmakers are given the chance to create the districts in which they run for re-election. It seems blatantly obvious that a commission comprised of non-legislators would be fairer than the current system. How could it not be? It's enough to imagine Miller sitting at a computer drawing the new 13th Congressional District as the thought of running for that very seat rolls around inside his head.

State Democratic leaders stubbornly refuse to concede the point, preferring instead to paint an independent redistricting commission as a gross violation of citizens' rights. Or something.

Here's Norma Mills, legal counsel to Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, offering the party line: "I'm not sure it's wise to put something that fundamental in the hands of a group of people who aren't directly accountable to the voters."

Miller is more acerbic, but reads from the same playbook: "A democracy should be governed by people who actually stand for election, not village elders who look down on us. It's better not to be governed by platonic guardians."

Yes, much better to be governed by an incumbent-protection racket in which nearly half the state Senate and over one-third of the House will face no opposition whatsoever in the next election.

What was that about being "accountable to voters" again?

At least one Democrat laughed out loud when told of Miller's "platonic guardians" bit.

"It makes sense that he wouldn't want to lose that control," says Kevin Hall, deputy press secretary to Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. "Why would any party that has the majority give up that raw exercise of power voluntarily?"

Virginia's story might sound familiar. The redistricting plan was drawn by the party in control of both legislative houses, in this case Republicans, but was found unconstitutional by a circuit court judge and is now heading to the Supreme Court. Taxpayers are, of course, paying for the court battle. They also got a fun public spat between the governor and his attorney general that almost spawned a second court battle. More bang for their buck, I guess.

"This is so blatantly partisan and so distracting; there has to be a better way," says Hall, echoing comments from Jesse Rutledge of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education. "The governor has suggested we look into creating a redistricting commission. He said we should start looking at what other states are experimenting with."

Like Arizona, for instance, whose new redistricting commission held 12 public hearings to solicit comments from voters before drawing its plan.

"The concept -- taking the politics out of redistricting -- is terrific," says Dianna Jennings, press secretary for the Arizona Democratic Party. "We had hearings all across the state; it was a very open process, with media always there."

"It was a definite improvement," says Paul Hegarty, the party's political director. "There's never been a time before when we've had this much opportunity for the citizens at large to give their input about what constitutes their community of interest. Before, it was always somebody else making those arbitrary decisions and ignoring them."

In other words, in Arizona's test case, the process actually served to involve citizens in their government more, not less. Would someone please tell Brad Miller the news?

The independent commission wasn't a quick cure-all. Both Hegarty and Jennings had higher hopes for changes in the current maps, which they call "lopsided in favor of Republicans," than the changes that actually materialized. Hegarty also says the steep learning curve was a problem for some of the laypeople on the commission, who seemed at times to be in over their heads, and notes that the new legislative district plan is being challenged in court by a minority coalition.

But amazingly, even after all the trouble he says Democrats faced, Hegarty continues to support Arizona's experiment.

"We still believe the independent redistricting commission is the way to go, yes," he says. "The process didn't live up to its original concept, but it's still better to hold it in the open, and better to have truly competitive districts that lead to better debates and better laws. It was a learning process for everybody. We're thinking about the future, long-term. We hope the process will work the way it's supposed to in the next redistricting, but it's still the best process." *