Congressional Redistricting and Gerrymandering

by: corwin

Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 23:55:17 PM EST

The actual laws governing redistricting are fairly simple. The US Constitution requires states to reapportion Congressional seats after each census, and the states then must determine appropriate boundaries for each Representative. In addition the states must do the same with their own legislative districts. The laws governing the redistricting process are left largely to the states. The section of the Florida Constitution which addresses redistricting is shown below:

http://www.leg.state...

The rules governing the redistricting process allow a significant amount of latitude in setting district boundaries. They are more concerned with schedule and judicial review than with setting any reasonable standard. This principle has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.  One area the Supreme Court has decided has been on the basis of District size. Currently all Districts within a state must be the same size. This has been the rule since the 1930 census. The range with which states must comply has been dropping since then (Note: I believe the current limit is 0.35 percent between the smallest and largest district. If anyone knows of a smaller limit, please let me know.). This was a major step forward as many States would have gross ranges in their Congressional Districts. Some States would have 10,000 people in several Districts, and then have 1 very large District with more than 1 million people. This allowed States to put all rig their representation in one way or the other.
The Supreme Court has dealt with race and ethnic redistricting issues several times. In the 80's and early 90's, the Justice Department, minority groups and many states combined to require maximizing minority representation in Congress. The link below has a very dense, but good discussion on Redistricting laws and the Supreme Court, including the Florida case.

http://www.senate.le...

Since maximizing majority minority Districts allowed Republicans to pack minorities in the same district, this had the effect of minimizing the number of Districts available for Democrats, creating an imbalance in many states, including Florida.

In addition to majority minority Districts, political gerrymandering in Florida has led to Districts stretched into bizarre shapes in order to accumulate enough votes of a certain political party to almost guarantee an outcome favorable to the party in power. This has happened with both democrats and republicans, although with the advent of computers in the last 15 years, the republicans have benefited far more since it corresponds to their rise in power in the state.

During the 2006 election cycle, a proposed Constitutional amendment nearly made the Florida ballot to reform the way redistricting is performed. It would have established standards for redistricting and also setup a committee to perform the actual process of redistricting. The proposed amendment was prevented from coming to a vote, however, when the state Supreme Court ruled it addressed 2 separate issues, violating the rule that amendments be limited to a single issue.

So, where to now? We have several advantages in Florida. First, we have two full election cycles to make this work before the next redistricting. This gives us time to work on some real reforms. Second, we can bypass our legislature and vote any proposed changes directly into the state Constitution. Finally, we can learn from last year, as well as from the amendments which failed in California and Ohio a few years ago.

As far as the actual content of the amendment or amendments, I would at a minimum break them into two parts, and stagger them over the next two elections. In 2008, I would deal with the standards used for redistricting. This is, I think, the more important part of reform. To eliminate the outrageous shapes of the districts, I would propose a limit on the perimeter to land area of the district. This would force all districts to be compact. I would also prevent communities and cities from being broken into too many different pieces. A city's population would determine its maximum number of Districts, allowing one more than the minimum necessary. Within a city, local communities would be grouped together based on contiguity. Districts could not run along a major road, bypassing several other communities in order to group certain communities together, either to advantage or disadvantage certain classes of people. If this does not pass in 2008, then the reason for its failure should be carefully examined and corrected for anther try in 2010.

In 2010, I would take on the more difficult task of setting up an independent commission to perform the redistricting process. We must think about who should be on the commission, how they will be nominated or appointed and how the Districts will ultimately be approved. Do they still have to be approved by the legislature, or signed by the governor or some other process as yet undetermined?

Since this will, in my opinion, be the more difficult amendment to pass, the first amendment should be written in such a way that it will give the state legislature very little wiggle room. They should have relatively few maps available, and none of which lead to two to one advantages of one party over the other.