Six days from today, the US Supreme Court will hear
arguments on whether redistricting -- the process of redrawing
electoral boundaries that follows each decenniel census -- can legally
consider politics in redrawing boundaries. In other words it will rule
on the constitutionality of gerrymandering.
In recent years, sophisticated computer software has allowed the
architects of redistricting -- the partisan governments in each state
-- to completely subvert the will of the people by drawing boundaries
that are wildly discontiguous but which, by 'packing', 'cracking' and
'kidnapping', ensure most seats will be won by the ruling party even if
that party gets much less than half of the votes. 'Packing'
concentrates the opposing party's votes in a few districts, so they win
those districts by huge majorities and most of their votes are wasted.
'Cracking' divides the rest of the opposing party's votes up so they
are not quite enough to win in any of the remaining districts. And
'kidnapping' puts two incumbents of the opposing party in the same
district.
The effect is extraordinary: In Florida, where votes statewide were
about 50-50, redistricting sent 18 Republicans and 7 Democrats to the
House. In Michigan, where votes for Democrats were much higher than for
Republicans, redistricting sent 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats to the
House. Even worse, Republicans have started using redistricting at
arbitrary times, instead of just once after the census, to make the
balance even more unrepresentative. The infamous Delay gerrymandering
in Texas is a prime example, as was the Colorado redictricting that was
struck
down yesterday (that ruling did not prohibit gerrymandering, it
merely restricted it to once per decade after the census).
But in Pennsylvania, the art was taken to an egregious extreme, and it
is that redistricting that will be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the
case starting December 10. Many election reform experts say this case
is even more important than the Bush vs Gore ruling. If the court
rejects the appeal, it will mean (a) that the party in power in each
state will essentially decide who goes to Congress for the next ten
years, rather than the voters, (b) that the only real challenge for
incumbents will be their party primaries, which tend to be dominated by
unrepresentative minorities that support more extreme candidates, and
(c) since only a handful of Congressional seats will be in any doubt,
voter turnout will be even lower, and apathy even higher, than it is
already.
I believe the Supreme Court in this case will be deciding the very
future of democracy in America. But then, I'm just a crazy Canadian who
has this quaint idea that electoral boundaries should be set logically
by an independent commission (as is done in Iowa, by the way), and that
voters should actually have a say on who represents them in government.
In somewhat related news, House Republican Katherine "hanging chad"
Harris, the notorious secretary of state who delivered Florida's
decisive votes to Bush in 2000, and has sandbagged
efforts to clean up the state's electoral system ever since, is
planning on running
for the Senate in that state. Republicans, nervous that her candidacy
will bring out Democrats in record numbers, are furiously trying to
draft Bush's reluctant housing secretary Mel Martinez to run against
her. Ah, well, if she doesn't win the primary, and if the Supreme Court
rules gerrymandering unconstitutional so she can't keep her House seat
either, I'm sure there's a job waiting for someone with her skills at
Diebold.
The chart above depicts, marked
by the perverse black line, the 13th Congressional District in Georgia.
It's the result of Democratic party 'packing' of Republican votes.
Although Republicans are better at this, and more aggressive,
gerrymandering is an equal opportunity abuse.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
