Beinart on Redistricting Reform
In Texas, DeLay clearly set out to destroy political competition. His Republican allies in the state legislature crammed African American and Latino Texans into their own heavily Democratic districts while making the surrounding ones overwhelmingly white, thus handing the Republicans five new House seats. The move made a mockery of the GOP's supposed opposition to racial separatism. And it blanketed the Lone Star State with one-party congressional districts and incumbents who will probably never face a real challenge.Schwarzenegger's proposal, by contrast, could dramatically increase political competition. When it redistricted in 2001, California's state legislature drew congressional lines that virtually guaranteed reelection for every incumbent, Republican and Democrat. As a result, in 2002, only one of the state's 53 districts witnessed a contested race (and that district wouldn't have been competitive either had Representative Gary Condit not gotten embroiled in the scandal over murdered intern Chandra Levy). Two years later, in 2004, not a single California House seat changed party hands.
New technology, which lets state legislators use precinct-level data about partisan identification to draw exquisitely uncompetitive districts, virtually guarantees that incumbents win reelection. That makes them less accountable to their constituents and more accountable to lobbyists and party bosses. And the problem keeps getting worse.
Earth to Kevin Drum ... is being "more accountable to lobbyists and party bosses" what you really want to defend?
Comments
This is one of those times when my conscience and my partisanship come into serious conflict.
On an ideological level I am a firm believer in nonpartisan redistricting. I think gerrymandering is ruining politics and if any state is proof of its failure look at California. This is one of the smartest things Schwarz could pull for and I gotta hand it to him.
But it will probably result in fewer Democrats and I am nothing if I am not a partisan. I am more conservative than my fellow Democrats (Greg excluded), but I support the party because I believe it is far and away better than the alternative. So it will hurt my party.
I guess the best test is- do I love my country or my party more? And the answer is easy- I love my country enough to die for it, more than anything else but my God and my family (and both of those precious things are only possible because of my country). So I say I have to begrudgingly support Schwarz's plan- I think it will be good for California and hopefully will spread far enough that almost every state will have nonpartisan redistricting by 2010.
Posted by: Andrew D | January 13, 2005 04:02 PM
Actually, a far worse case of partisan gerrymandering is Florida. Consider if enough state (let's say the partisan ID is a wash) adapt the idea but Jeb and the FLGOP resist. Instead of relying on pressure for the other side to see the merits of the idea, it can also serve as a blunt instrument to beat them with in an upcoming election.
Oh, is also works in case Jeff Wentworth can't get his bill for this idea out of committee here in Texas.
Lesson being, there should be less calculation going on with this issue and more eager acceptance of it. The longterm benefits to party are a nice side benefit to the more immediate benefits it provides one's state (or country).
Posted by: Greg Wythe | January 13, 2005 04:07 PM
Greg and Andrew,
Y'all are both very noble in your support for the concept of nonpartisan redistricting. I guess given the alternative of "attempted" nonpartisan and outright Republican gerrymandering, I would chose "nonpartisan".
The reality is that partisanship rules and to the victor go the spoils, and the better alternative at least today remains with Democratic led redistricting. I hope everyone has learned a good lesson about the guise of "bipartisanship". That was Republican code for "we befriend our toughest competition until we get the upper hand and then we'll wipe them off the map!"
I never bought into the bipartisan lip service and I was proven right. The benefit of bipartisanship rests solely in the actual execution of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) when it provides win-win results for the general public and not political parties. The notion of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship in the election process of which redistricting is a part is senseless.
My argument for Democratic redistricting can be made by the fact that the conservative majorities and ethnic and liberal minorities of the old US House Districts 1, 2 & 17 where better represented and served by Democrats that were accountable to the full spectrum of their constituencies by virtue of their party affiliation. Despite the Republicans skirting of unconstitutional redistricting by the ?give them (minorities) their districts and let them eat them too approach*, the Democratic Party kept one targeted moderate/conservative seat and have a few where the Representatives do not look like the ethnic makeup of their district thus proving the reality of our diversity.
*The result being that ethnic minority districts were strengthened at the expense of other Democratic districts assuring ethnic minority representation is limited to a Party in the political minority. How is this different than White v. Regester 1973?
Posted by: Ted Waterston | January 13, 2005 11:55 PM
For clarification,my comments were regarding Texas Congressional districts 1,2,& 17.
Posted by: Ted Waterston | January 14, 2005 01:24 AM