Foxes Building the Henhouse

 

Page 2 of 3

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?