Today, Democrats Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Heath Shuler of North Carolina plan to introduce legislation aimed at reforming the state redistricting process. The "Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act" would require states to to hold open hearings and use Internet resources to increase public participation in the process. In a statement, Shuler said that "the current system of gerrymandered districts has left a patchwork of highly-partisan, ideologically skewed Congressional districts, where Representatives are more beholden to their political party than the constituents they were elected to serve."
Likewise, in a press release, the Campaign Legal Center expressed its support for the measure: "In too many states the decennial redistricting process constitutes a national embarrassment. The partisan abuses are what one might expect from an ‘emerging democracy’ not the United States of America. As voters in states with ballot initiatives have shown again and again, the redistricting status quo is unacceptable."
I'm not so sure. Both Shuler and the CLC are working with two, somewhat problematic assumptions: first, that representative government requires competitive legislative districts, and second, that it's best when moderate. Neither holds up to much scrutiny. For lawmakers drawing district lines, competition isn't the only goal. Equally compelling (or more so) is the desire to satisfy as many constituents as possible: "How can we best serve the people in our districts?"
It's possible that highly partisan districts are more amenable to producing satisfied constituents than the alternative, where politicians are moderate by necessity and have to satisfy the diverse preferences of a broad cross-section. Put another way, If your district is evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and independents, then for any given decision, you are guaranteed to disappoint a significant number of people you represent. By contrast, a district that overwhelmingly favors one party has fewer needs to meet and is easier to satisfy than a diverse one.
As for moderation? If you believe that political parties are solely a vehicle for collective decision making -- i.e. "Why can't we all just get along?" -- then you'll probably want moderate districts and centrist politicians. But if you believe that political parties exist to represent particular constituencies and ideological views, and provide distinct policy choices, then there's no reason to want ideologically diverse districts. The more partisan the district, the more cohesive the party, and the better able it is to represent its supporters. In other words, the party-beholden representative in a "highly-partisan, ideologically skewed" district is likely to do a better job of representing her constituents than a more moderate colleague in a more bipartisan area.
To be sure, partisanship isn't very helpful to governing when a minority can -- free of electoral consequence -- block all legislation. But that's a problem with the rules, not with partisanship. In a Senate where majorities were a little stronger, partisanship wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Simply put: If the idea is to have bipartisan comity, then by all means, create evenly split havens for centrist politicians. But if the idea is to accurately represent people and their interests, then I don't see why you wouldn't want heavily gerrymandered districts.
-- Jamelle Bouie
