Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 1, 1991 TAG: 9104010165
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DON RICHARDSON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Because the reapportionment process affects the political life and death of politicians, it has always been an intensely political and partisan struggle. Incumbents of both political parties strive to have district lines drawn so that their re-election prospects are enhanced as much as possible. Where one party is dominant and so controls the process, it will strive to draw lines that will favor its candidates.
Partisan gerrymandering - the attempt by incumbent legislators and majority parties to draw election districts to favor one political party over another - has a negative impact on the nation's democratic system of representation. Partisan gerrymandering dilutes the value of political participation, reduces electoral competition and inhibits legislative responsiveness to constituent views. One study, for example, has followed the effects of partisan gerrymandering in Utah.
After gaining a majority of seats in 1960, the study found, the Republican Party continued to expand its dominance of the legislature after the 1970 and 1982 reapportionments, without increased popular support at the polls. Over the same time period, the proportion of uncontested seats in the legislature almost tripled. Finally, of the 14 districts identified as gerrymandered by the study's author, 12 saw voter participation fall well below the state's average rate, while voter participation rose significantly in 17 of the remaining 21 districts.
The extremely partisan nature of the redistricting process, and the deep-rooted reluctance of legislators to open up the process to reform, present formidable challenges to those interested in establishing more fair and open processes for redistricting. Reform efforts have attempted to ensure that legislators do not exploit the process in order to advance their political and personal interests at the cost of fair and responsible representative government.
Common Cause has long supported the establishment of independent reapportionment commissions, either through the legislative process or by amendments to state constitutions. The farther the reapportionment process can be removed from the direct participation of legislators, the less likely incumbent or partisan interests will affect negatively the process.
The following are suggested standards for the development of a redistricting plan:
1. Equal population based on a maximum average deviation of no more than 10 percent for state districts and 1 percent for congressional districts.
This standard is in accordance with precedents set by various state court rulings and the Supreme Court. The 1 percent allowable deviation for congressional districts has been used to guide decisions of the Supreme Court in challenges of redistricting plans on the basis that they did not "make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as practicable."
2. To the extent consistent with population-equality standards, district lines shall be drawn to coincide with the boundaries of local political subdivisions.
Respect for political subdivisions has been recognized by the courts as justification for deviation from equal-population standards, i.e., a "legitimate state interest." In combination with equal-population standards, it also serves as an effective deterrent to partisan gerrymandering because district line-drawers can manipulate neither the size nor the area of districts merely for partisan interests. Finally, for both voters and policymakers, it is rational extension of institutions of local government.
3. Compact and contiguous districts on the basis of aggregate length of all district boundaries shall be as short as practicable consistent with the constitutional requirement of substantial population equality and maintenance of political subdivision boundaries.
This provision is directed at partisan gerrymandering in the classic sense - that is, at districts which, on the map, look like salamanders. Population equality and respect for political subdivisions would take priority over this standard.
4. No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person or group.
Although this may hold up in the state courts on the basis of such wording in the state constitution, the Supreme Court's Bandemar decision has made this standard extremely difficult to sustain. Nevertheless, it does serve a purpose as a general guideline and implicit statement of purpose for redistricting plans.
Ten years ago almost $1 million was spent in litigation related to redistricting in Virginia. In this time of budget cuts, layoffs and general recession, we look to the leadership of the General Assembly to propose a redistricting plan that is fair to all citizens of the commonwealth: a plan that will pass muster and avoid costly litigation.
\ AUTHOR NOTE: Don Richardson , who lives in Winchester, is chairman of Common Cause in Virginia.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB