The redistricting grail
Vote for bill on competitive districts won't create them
Rocky Mountain News
Thursday, March 27, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Americans say they want competitive congressional districts. Politicians say it. Commentators say it (we certainly have). And general voters say it. No one likes a system where the overwhelming majority of incumbents win reelection every two years without breaking a sweat.
Trouble is, competitive districts in a state like Colorado can't be drawn without doing violence to other important values, as a bill set for a floor vote today in the state Senate proves again.
Senate Bill 198 would set tighter guidelines for the legislature when lawmakers draw new congressional district lines after the 2010 census. It's not a bad bill, and might dull some of the partisan edge from redistricting. But we just can't see it making a big difference, given how it's written.
Goodness knows, easing the partisan death grip on many congressional districts would force politicians to address the concerns of a broader spectrum of voters. The possibility of wide-open contests would inspire legitimate challengers (rather than placeholders or long shots) to run against incumbents, improving the quality of those who hold office.
The public's view of Congress has soured; approval ratings have dropped to the 20s and below, sinking to 19 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from earlier this month.
That's where SB 198, by Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, is supposed to come to the rescue.
The bill requires the legislature to create competitive districts. And in theory this could be done. Given the large number of unaffiliated voters throughout Colorado, the Democratic or Republican registration advantage in most districts could be largely neutralized by obliterating city limits and erasing county lines.
Heavily Democratic Denver and heavily Republican El Paso County, for instance, could be carved up by legislative mapmakers, dividing residents among several congressional districts.
It appears, however, that SB 198 would not allow this. The bill instructs lawmakers to satisfy a list of priorities in order when drawing legislative boundaries - and "create competitive districts" is eighth on that list. It ranks below requirements that districts have equal population and follow federal voting rights laws; that lawmakers design compact districts; and that cities, counties, "communities of interest" (geographic or cultural regions) and existing congressional districts(!) be left largely intact.
Only after these guidelines are met could the legislature then attempt to craft competitive districts. That hill is too steep. If the idea was to increase the number of contested congressional races, that priority should have been placed higher than, say, maintaining the integrity of city and county boundaries - and certainly above concerns about prior district lines.
We're not suggesting the bill should have mandated the carving up of communities of interest. But if you're not willing to do that, it's all but impossible to design competitive districts.
On the plus side, the bill would bring more public scrutiny to the line-drawing process. The legislature would have to schedule at least 12 public hearings statewide to vet proposed redistricting plans. The public would also have access to the mapmaking software and other tools lawmakers use so residents might better understand how proposed boundaries were selected.
Bringing transparency to a process that often delivers inexplicable results - have you seen the map of the 7th District? - is a worthy objective.
Beyond that, however, don't expect much. In such unbalanced districts as the 2nd and 6th, the primaries will continue to count for more than the general election for many years to come.
Comments
Posted by VVVV on March 27, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If all it does is reduce the likelihood of the legislature spending another month arguing about redistricting, wasting taxpayer money on lawsuits for political agenda, then it's a win to me. I think all legislators bickering about non-critical issues should be treated just like kindergardeners - put them in the corner to focus on what they did wrong, how they failed us, and what they can do in the future to do their jobs and improve our state.
Posted by malis on March 27, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It isn't so much that you force competitive districts...it's that you remove the current perverse incentive for both parties to purposefully create uncompetitive (safe) districts. SB 198 looks like a pretty reasonable step toward that goal.
It is interesting that the court-ordered Congressional redistricting plan (adopted after the Legislature couldn't agree on a plan after the 2000 Census) seems a pretty good implementation of the spirit of SB 198. Passage of SB 198 would ensure the Democrats don't repeat the Republican's 'midnight redistricting' attempt of a few years ago (a good thing, no matter who happens to hold power).
Posted by irisman on March 27, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears that it shouldn't be too difficult to make the congressional districts in Colorado more competitive, since there is good data available on the political makeup of the various regions in the state. Everybody wants more competitive districts, except for the politicians, whose tenure becomes more risky, so I guess it won't happen.
Posted by ItsJustme on March 27, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll believe we have "competitive" CDs when a Democrat is elected in the CD that includes Arapahoe and Douglas counties AND a Republican is elected in the CDs that include Boulder and Denver counties. That should be right after the tooth fairy is captured alive.
Posted by buffsblg on March 27, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no perfect solution to the partisanship of redistricting and many have tried. This bill hardly solves the problem but at least it looks at the problem and makes steps. Baby steps maybe, but perhaps all we can expect.
Posted by HDoby on March 27, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Representative. The goal of Senator Gordon's bill is to insure districts fairly represent their constituents. If Colorado's 7 Congressional districts together fairly reflect the mix of Independent, Republican and Democratic voters, then competitiveness becomes a bonus, not the end-all goal.
The bill is really an attempt to define a fair and open redistricting process that prevents “midnight gerrymandering” as practiced a few years ago by ex-Senator John Andrews.
Districts become competitive whenever the incumbent fails to represent their constituents (e.g. Marilyn Musgrave). Either they start listening to their constituents or they get the boot. That is as it should be. Attempts to legislate competitiveness miss the point, as does the Rocky's editorial obsession with competitiveness. The bill rates competitiveness as number 8 in priority for good reason.
While competitive races every 2 years might bring smiles to the advertising sales departments of local radio and TV stations, the downside effects are manifold: outrageous campaign costs leading to undue influence from major contributors, and national party attempts to override local agendas through negative campaigns focused around a couple of wedge issues, resulting in exhausted and disillusioned voters.
In that kind of campaign, the successful single issue candidate arrives in office only to find that there will be hundreds of other issues they will be asked to decide each year. But the voters will have little idea about their representative's opinions about these other matters, or how their life experiences and values might lead them to form a decision that represents the best interests of their district.
I'd much rather judge the candidates based on their life experiences, general demeanor and learn how they overcame challenges in their own lives. Then you can take the true measure of the person, and feel more comfortable trusting that their judgment is sufficient to do what's best for the district, not just for themselves or the parties they are beholden to.
I'll gladly settle for representative and leave competitiveness to the two daily newspapers.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.