Is redistricting “fair”?
Matt Mackowiak tackled the issue in the Statesman, in an opinion piece headlined “Redistricting doesn’t need fixing.” He writes:
With the primary elections in a redistricting year now in the rearview mirror, the predictable lament of losing candidates is to blame the district lines.
If only the process were fair!
Elected officials don’t own the voters. They don’t own their districts. They are allowed to rent them, for two-, four- or six-year periods, contingent upon review by the voters.
Incumbents have all the advantages — official staff, travel budget, favors to offer, ability to raise money, high name recognition.
If you are an incumbent, and you lost, you have no one to blame but yourself….
* * * *
Of course, that is not a true statement. If you are an incumbent in the minority party, you are at the mercy of the majority. In a one-party state like Texas, the majority has all the advantages in redistricting. It controls the process. If you are an incumbent in the minority party and you lost, all you can do is to blame the majority party, and that will get you nowhere. They drew the map that generated the district lines that defeated the losing candidates. Back to Mr. Mackowiak:
While this harsh reality escapes some, a new debate, which is revisited every 10 years, has emerged. Should we take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature? Should we change the process in place for decades? The U.S. Constitution requires that the state governing body is responsible for reapportionment every Census period. It does not say “judges” or “independent commissions.”
What Mr. Mackowiak misses here is that in almost every redistricting cycle, the issue IS taken out of the hands of the Legislature. The Constitution may not say “judges,” but in every redistricting cycle that I can recall, the constitutionality of the maps has been ultimately decided by the courts, not the Legislature. This year was no exception. The D.C. court determined that the Legislature’s maps were drawn with discriminatory intent. In most redistricting cycles, if not in every redistricting cycle, the final say belongs to the courts, not to the elected officials. If I were in the minority, I would trust the courts to be fair long before I would dream of relying on the hope of receiving fair treatment at the hands of the people’s representatives. Mr. Mackowiak is entitled to believe that the best way to achieve fairness in redistricting is by applying the collective judgment of the Legislature, but past experience records that the courts do a far better job of protecting the rights of the minority. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we have courts.
Tagged: redistricting
Pete Schweddy says:
I submit that voting the way your district leans is more important.
David Farabee never lost because he voted his district’s wishes. He left on his own terms.
A Democrat in very red Wichita Falls…
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
It’s laughable that Mackowiak cites Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as ensuring that redistricting is fair, when he and his cohorts have it in their sights.
It begs the question whether they see any value to Sec 5, and whether a legislature unbridled by Sec 5 could be trusted.
JPD
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 9:11 am
I expect the Supreme Court to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, giving Republicans the mojo they need to defeat Obama on November 6th.
Reply »
Easy Money Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Blue Dogs, they may strike it down, but it won’t be before the November elections.
paulburka says:
Yes, but he would have lost had he stayed.
Reply »
anita says:
It seems that the conservative movement has concluded that it can no longer win on ideas, it just has to rig the system to maintain power:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/politics/groups-like-true-the-vote-are-looking-very-closely-for-voter-fraud.html?hpw
We see this in “Voter ID” schemes, in redistricting shams that dilute and pack voters, and in harassment of individuals for excessing the franchise.
This is really unbecoming for a great nation.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Anita: Note the sweet little Texas lady who started True the Vote said, “After the 2008 election, something in my head just clicked.” Could it be a black man in the White House?
When Mitch Daniels became IN gov. in 2004, Voter ID was implemented there in a flash. These plans have been in the works for the GOP for a long time. Strange that voter fraud only seems to be a problem in states with GOP governance.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 6:08 am
what is unbecoming is the all out assault by the left using deception:
The latest CNN/ORC poll released today shows a wider lead for President Obama than the previous CNN/ORC poll but it is doubly skewed. It massively under-samples independents while it also over-samples Democratic voters. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll official reports Obama at 52 to percent and Mitt Romney at 46 percent. Unskewed, the data reveals a 53 percent to 45 percent lead for Romney.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll
Reply »
Jim R. Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
There was a time when Texas was run totally by the Democrats and they too sought to insure they would never loose power again. Young folks have NO clue what happened in the past, they are self-absorbed with current events and never lok back to gain knowledge or perspective…
Reply »
Leslie Knope Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 9:29 am
As the “young folks” that frequent this blog, I can tell you that we do look at history, even though, yes, it is not as readily avilable as current events, Twitter, etc., some of us do take the time to find the information. But to say that we don’t know anything about history is both arrogant and ignorant. Maybe your age, whatever it may be lacks the depth and analysis that my age group (or at least my peers) are so good at. If you had any analytical skills whatsoever, you’d realize this post is not about Democrats. Or Republicans for that matter.
Reply »
anita says:
Paul, you are correct that this is why we have courts, to protect the rights of the minority, especially with regard to the vote — but the State of Texas is salivating at the prospect of taking away why these cases end up in court, the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Keep in mind, the official position of the State of Texas, in response to a finding of intentional discrimination in redistricting, is not to fix the maps to address the discrimination — but to challenge the law that defines the discrimination. The current leadership at the State seems to think intentional discrimination is just fine and dandy.
Reply »
U232 Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
“Intentional Discrimination” as defined by the courts is fine and dandy because the courts have equated intentional discrimination against Democrats with intentional discrimination on the basis of race. The courts have unfortunately perverted the Voting Rights Act into a tool for partisan gain. When racial motivations are imputed to partisan motivations, this is where the Voting Rights Act needs to be seriously considered as no longer achieving its original goal, and indeed, is unconstitutional. I expect the Supreme Court to greatly narrow its application to intentional racial discrimination only this term–this is what our state leaders are seeking, and this is what they are likely to obtain–resulting in the legislature’s maps being largely, if not entirely, upheld on appeal.
Reply »
anon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 10:36 am
That’s ridiculous — there’s a long line of Anglo Democratic former officeholders who can attest to how false this is.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
for those who won’t like the SCOTUS decision, you gotta ask yourself if suing everything that comes out of the lege has consequences?
Reply »
jerry only Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:56 am
The same could be said for abbott suing the feds 3 times a week
Anonymous says:
Voting districts should be laid out in geometric designs that use county boundaries as their basis.
Reply »
JK says:
What Democrats want is to maintain VRA (including Section 5) so that the map drawing begins with a maximum number of safe and legally protected Democrat seats locked in. Then they want the rest of the state divided up by a “neutral” commission using “fair” principles to create as many “competitive” districts as possible. If the Democrats truly believed in a neutral commission, they’d offer the GOP a grand baragain: simultaneously create a state Redistricting Commission and also get Congress to change the VRA so that it does not apply AT ALL to redistricting (or at least provide some way for states to “opt out” of VRA coverage for redistricting). Let the new commission start with a truly blank slate… Hey Dems…Any takers?
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
That’s not a bargain. The reason we have the VRA is because the promise of the 14th Amendment was thwarted, not just in the South but in many parts of America. Constitutional rights can’t be bargained away — they are non-negotiable.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 17th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
As well as the 15th Amendment — long day.
Of course, neither were ratified by Texas, both were rejected by our state. We went back post-certification to approve them, when it was of no consequence. So appropriate now that we are leading the charge against the VRA.
Anyone who asserts that LBJ had no principles needs to listen to his speech when he signed the VRA, including his pledge to bring suit against his own state if Texas didn’t immediately comply.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
LBJ had no principles, everything he did was a calculated move for political or personal gain.
Anonymous Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 9:46 am
They can be taken away – all one must do is amend the Constitution. Very hard to do yes, but if Americans decided that they don’t like a certain part of the 14th Amendment anymore, they could in theory change it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:12 am
I have mixed feelings about the Voting Rights Act. I am uncomfortable with the idea that the Act in effect gives a group of people the right to elect a candidate of their choice. Nobody should be guaranteed representation; you ought to have to go to the polls and vote. At the same time, it is unquestionably true that there are still attempts made to disenfranchise certain groups–such as Voter I.D. If the Supremes strike down Section 5, it will be the end of black elected officials in southern states. That’s why I think they won’t do it.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 10:27 am
Burka, if the SC strikes down Section 5 of the VRA, you could see an exedous of black elected officials in the South-which is why Rodney Ellis keeps complaining because he’s worried whoever takes his State Senate seat is a white person.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Giving up Section 5 and THEN trusting a commission created by the Leg. to be “fair”? Before the Dems gave up the VRA protection they would have to 2000% certain the GOP could not rig the Commission…It would be nice if there could be a fiar commission but in Texas, with the Rick Perrys of the world having a say in the commission’s makeup, that is never going to happen. The Dems are not that dumb!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Mackowiak: “The U.S. Constitution requires that the state governing body is responsible for reapportionment every Census period.”
Where is this in the U.S. Constitution? The Constitution (in Article 1, section 4) only requires that the state legislature prescribe the time, place and manner of holding elections as far as I can tell. If a state wants to prescribe that an independent commission handle redistricting they can.
Reply »
anon says:
By the way, Gov. Romney — I’m part of the 47% that voted for Obama, and I’m not dependent on the government for a damn thing. I also pay plenty in taxes.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 8:05 am
47%? Obama got 53% nationally and 44% in Texas. Who are the 47%?
Reply »
anon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 10:50 am
In a moment of unscripted candor, Mitt announced — on videotape — that he has no use for 47% of Americans who he believes are “dependent” on the government and pay no taxes.
I guess you have to give him credit for admitting that he has limited knowledge of how American society works and that he only cares about serving the wealthy. We all knew this was the case, so kudos for just saying it. And for the 47% of Americans that he impugns, we could give a damn about the “elegance” of his statement.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 10:28 am
Texian, Obama couldn’t come close to 60 percent in 2008 when everyone was going his way: he only got 53 percent while 46 percent of Americans voted AGAINST him.
Reply »
allmaya says:
Amen anon.
Today was the end of the Romney campaign.
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Wait, you mean the end of the Romney campaign wasn’t when Bill Clinton wagged his finger during the Democratic convention?
Reply »
WhiteRA says:
False premise
Redistricting isn’t fair. It is about preserving and expanding political power . . .
Reply »
Truman Sparks says:
The real question is whether your question is “fair”. In the 1990 redistricting mess, Texas Monthly criticized Eddie Bernice Johnson for her feeble attempt to draw herself a district. I believe the quote in the magazine was something akin to giving a child red marker while sitting on a white silk sofa. But I cannot recall the question being raised as to whether the process was “fair: or not. Of course it was not fair. Members of the House and Senate fought amongst themselves to gerrymander seats that they could win. “Stack em and crack em” was the quote used to describe how to push members of the opposing party into one district and divide them between others. That is how it worked back then. But, of course that was when the majority party was different.
Reply »
anon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Kenny Marchant did the exact same thing.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I believe it was a democrat who said “all’s fair in love, war and politics.”
Democrats use the “fairness” dogma when they’re losing to justify their position.
I believe the answer is “life ain’t fair.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think it should be illegal for a state legislator to run for a seat in Congress in the election after redistricting. Too many compromises are made trying to help somebody climb the ladder. Redistricting should be about preserving communities of interest, not helping somebody run for higher office.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 9:54 am
There are serious Constitutional issues with what you just proposed. State’s can’t expand limits on Congressional qualifications laid out in Article One of the United States Constitution. Just like it can’t require that people voting in elections actually be intelligent.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:08 am
As a resident of Austin, currently sliced and diced into FIVE separate districts (up from three, up from one), I could not agree more with this sentiment. Dividing Democrat Austin to punish it politically for not toeing a conservative Republican line is a perversion of representative government. My reps mainly live in San Antonio. How are my interests and concerns “represented” by that?
Reply »
Statehouse says:
How does Mackowiak get a piece in the Statesman? This guy is the biggest self-promoter in the business.
He’s the only staffer I’ve ever heard of that has a parody twitter account devoted to him.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
The bottom line is the only way you’ll ever have “fair” redistricting is if your state is like Iowa – one with no VRA protections, few minorities, and a commission that draws the lines with the goal of not splitting county boundaries. Iowa lost a district after the 2010 census and is now down to four seats, but each is expected to be competitive and evenly balanced. You could never do that in Texas with the requirements to draw districts to elect black and Hispanic Democrats. The other dirty secret to this whole thing is that Republicans have been happy to oblige in drawing minority-majority seats because the concentration of minorities into selected districts has turned the other seats into safely Republican districts. That’s one of the big reasons that all the WD-40s are gone except for Doggett and Gene Green, and both of them represents a district that should be for an Hispanic Democrat on paper.
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 10:17 am
Democrats take note: you must realize that the districts in Texas that are THE MOST GERRYMANDERED, meaning the districts most convoluted and wildly drawn to effect a certain political outcome, are overwhelmingly MINORITY DISTRICTS. These minority districts, such as CD 18 in Houston (Sheila Jackson Lee) are also at the top of the list as the LEAST COMPETITIVE districts in the state. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with creating minority districts, but there is often talk (now that Republicans are “in charge”) about fairness, lack of competitiveness, etc., etc. that seems not to recognize this point.
As JK mentioned earlier, it seems the minority districts are taken as a given, then the complaining is all about the Republicans making safe seats.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:11 am
This is true, and it’s tied to a deliberate Republican strategy of making the Democrat Party appear to be solely the party of “minorities” so as to better frighten white voters into voting for candidates that reassuringly “look like them.”
Reply »
retrocon Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
But don’t forget one small detail, the MOST GERRYMANDERED minority districts of all, it can be argued, are some of the ones Democrats drew in 1991 (CD18, CD29, and CD30).
Blue Dogs Reply:
September 21st, 2012 at 10:30 am
Which explains why most minorities have difficulty winning statewide office when they try to move up.
See Harold Ford, Jr’s unsuccessful US Senate bid in TN back in 2006 when he gave up a safe US House seat to run for statewide office.
He almost pulled it off.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Texian politico is right, and as a dem, you have to look no further than the VRA to ultimately explain why Texas is the only majority minority state without a democratic statewide office holder. Most seats in the legislature and congress held by democrats are held by minorities who have no or token Republican opposition in November. They have little incentive to raise money for the statewide party, often sit in their seats for twenty years or more doing nothing but having steak dinners at Perry’s.
If you don’t have to worry about getting reelected, you don’t work hard to raise your number of voters, or register new voters. So legions of hispanics are ignored by local dem office holders. That is why California and New Mexico hispanics vote at much higher rates. I’m sure someone will scream that no investment is made to reach these voters in Texas, and they are right. But that’s because there is no true effort among hispanic office holders in state house and senate districts. With 40 minority state house dems, each could raise $250K toward minority voter registration. That would be $10 million dollars. But most will sleep right through election night, haven’t held a fundraiser, won’t do call time because they are too important, and shake their heads and wonder why nothing they ever set out to accomplish ever gets done (other than have a lot of good steak dinner’s at Perry’s).
The VRA was the ally of the Republican Party. It sped realignment. It continues to hold down true party competition. If I were one of the hard core Rs, I would do everything quietly, and under the table, to keep the VRA intact. Why do you think Bush reupped it?
Reply »
anon Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 10:41 am
That’s exactly right — R’s have purposefully “packed” urban minority seats to create more suburban R districts. They’ve effectively made the Democratic Anglo male an endangered species by twisting the VRA to produce a result that furthers their interests.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Yes, the designated “minority districts” all too often becom sinecures for establishment-backed minority offficeholders who won’t rock the boat or upset the gravy train. They’re worse than useless and betrayers of their constituents.
Reply »
Tom Barry says:
FYI, Mackowiak’s piece was presented side-by-side with a different opinion, by Jeff Wentworth:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/wentworth-time-for-a-redistricting-commission-2459767.html
Reply »
LuzVilla'sGhost says:
Do you mean Jeff Wentworth who was crushed a the polls int he run-off? That Jeff Wentworth?
It is common knowledge that Wentworth got his bill through the Senate each time because Senators needed his vote on other matters. They knew the House would kill the bill or the Governor would veto it.
It never had a prayer, and now even less of one.
Reply »
Tom Barry says:
But what about his point? Valid,invalid, or what? Isn’t it worth discussing?
Reply »
Leslie Knope Reply:
September 20th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Worth discussing. I was surprised Burka didn’t post Wentworth’s op as well. The idea of an independent commission is nice, but we all know that “indipendent, non-partisan” commissions are just as vulnerable to politics as any other governing body, especially if something like the above mentioned Dem/GOP “Grand Bargain” was in place. Too risky, in a state where Gerrymandering is alive and well. It should be noted that Wentworth didn’t lose to redistricting, he lost to anti-incumbent sentiment. You have to give kudos for a republican/sitting member on the redistricting cmte suggesting this type of reform.
Reply »
retrocon says:
Mackowiak’s article is even less compelling that Buddy Roemer’s run for the presidency. Anonymous @ 8:18pm already mentioned Mackowiak’s misstated appeal to the US Constitution — nothing in the Constitution says state legislatures must draw the lines. And besides silly pronouncements such as his grand summation that “The process has worked in Texas for decades”, his reasoning boils down to two primary arguments:
1) That the current process is deliberative, rigorous, open and allows for accountability.
2) That there are back-up systems in place to ensure things are fair, in case the legislature were to do something truly unfair.
That there are back-up systems such as the courts and pre-clearance review says nothing about the “fairness” of the legislature, and there is no recognition that such back-up systems ONLY apply in the limited scope of minority districts. These back-up systems would be in place no matter whether a commission drew the lines or the legislature.
And regarding accountability, it sounds good in theory and serves to be a source of campaign fodder for the opposition party, but never plays out in real life. For one thing, the ones who are at the forefront of redistricting, Burt Solomons (2011), Phil King (2003), Eddie Bernice Johnson (1991) are never voted on statewide, and are in (or will be in) ultra-safe districts where their own constituents will never vote them out. That we can “vote out members” or make redistricting a political issue is a farce.
Reply »
Nick says:
It should surprise no one that the Republican party doesn’t trust democracy. Look to Mitt’s 47% comment as an illustration of this. Limiting voting rights is seen as a necessary way to protect the system from “corrupt” voters who respond only to the “bribes” of the welfare state/socialist Democrats.
Reply »
retrocon says:
Romney doesn’t indicate he “doesn’t trust democracy”. His comments, made back in May but only now being released, are actually lamentably correct that there are far too many people in this nation that are on government assistance, and those millions are not likely to be reached by appeals to lower taxes, etc.
Obama is counting on this situation being the case, and is playing to a tax-the-rich campaign strategy.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I don’t trust democracy. I trust a constitutional republic. There is a big difference, though the average voter has no concept of that difference. That’s one of the reasons why we are in our current mess.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
September 18th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
retrocon: almost all adult Americans are on some sort of govt. support. They just refuse to admit it. Perhaps they simply can’t comprehend it. But they are . . . even old Mitt.
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
“almost all adult Americans are on some sort of govt. support…even old Mitt.”
Care to elaborate?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“almost all adult Americans are on some sort of govt. support. They just refuse to admit it.”
I have to hand it to liberals they get goofier every day.
Reply »
Tom says:
During the GOP debates, Romney told Newt Gingrich that if Gingricg’s tax plan were law, he ( Romney) would have paid no taxes. The Gingrich plan would have done away with all capital gains taxes, but would have kept income taxes, and Romney said he would have paid no taxes.
I’ll let that soak in for awhile.
Reply »
Justin Williams says:
As an African American voter, I see four things as threats. Sheila Jackson Lee and those like her being reelected, conservative legislatures cutting lines for their own political purposes, conservatives trying to end VRA, and the apathy of minority voters in rural areas. I, however, have a solution and that is a redistricting commission made of delegates from each senatorial district in Texas. Each senatorial district shall have an equal number (18) delegates appointed by county judges.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:40 am
And how do you think those senatorial districts were drawn up?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
a redistricting committee won’t work leave it in the lege where it belongs.
California is a good example why committees don’t work
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/12/21/more-proof-democrats-manipulated-redistricting/
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:47 am
They used a committee in Arizona and it ended up being a controlled by liberals even though it was supposed to be impartial. They drew a new map that the Democrats couldn’t have expected in their wildest dreams.
There is no perfect way to draw a map unless you are a state like Iowa. It’s as simple as that. Michael Barone has repeatedly pointed out as well that parties often over reach and it doesn’t take long for the gains they made on the map to reverse themselves. A good example is PA in 2002. They drew a heavily GOP map and really pushed it to get a 12-7 congressional delegation. Within two elections it was flipped on them 7-12. Now it’s back the other way again. An example closer to home is Travis Co in 2002. Rep. Keel wanted the GOP to not get too greedy with the new state rep lines, but they did. They ended up with a 3-3 GOP to Dem state rep delegation in Travis Co after the 2002 election, but they spread themselves so thin that after the 2006 election is was 6-0 Dem. If they had been more conservative they could have probably keept it to 4-2 Dem or at worst 5-1 Dem.
Reply »
Pat says:
Burka, I looked into this issue going back to the passage of the VRA. Federal courts have had to modify the Texas maps from every redistricting cycle–1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2003, and now 2011–to meet the requirements of the VRA. Importantly, the conservative Democrats were in charge in the first three instances. Of course, most of them have either died or switched parties at this point.
Reply »