In 1812, Elbridge Gerry was the Governor of Massachusetts, and his party created an oddly-shaped district in order to give them an advantage in the upcoming Senatorial election. The Boston Gazette combined the name "Gerry" with the word "salamander," and cartooned the district as a monster called a "Gerry-mander." Ever since then, the policy of creating tortuous electoral districts for political advantage has been called "gerrymandering."
In some states, gerrymandering is commonplace. State legislatures mold the districts for the advantage of their party, and incumbent Congressmen are almost always reelected. For example, if you examine a map of the Texas Congressional districts, you can almost see the gerrymanders wiggling all around the state!
In the past, the Texas legislature was controlled by the Democratic Party, so they gerrymandered the districts to favor the Democrats. Then--when control of the Texas legislature shifted to the Republican Party--they did not wait for a new census, but redistricted the state immediately, gerrymandering it into districts that favor the Republicans.
This is a proposal to improve the Congressional redistricting process:
Create the Congressional Districts after each census, by a majority vote in the House of Representatives.
The new districts shall be drawn to conform to the following rules, in descending order of priority:
a) Every district within a state must be contiguous.
b). Every district within a state must be equal in population.
c). The districts within each state must be drawn so that they minimize the number of counties that contain more than one Congressional district.
d) The districts within each state must be drawn so that they minimize the number of counties that contain more than two Congressional districts.
e) The districts within each state must be drawn so that they minimize the number of counties that contain more than three Congressional districts.
f) If a county contains more than one Congressional district, the districts must be drawn so that they minimize the number of cities that contain more than one Congressional district.
After the House of Representatives decides on the new Congressional District map of each state, the new map is sent to the United States Supreme Court.
If any member of the United States Senate objects to any state redistricting map, he has 30 days to submit a redistricting map that better conforms to the rules 2a through 2f.
After 30 days, the United States Supreme Court must decide which redistricting map for each state best conforms to the rules 2a through 2f, and that redistricting map shall be adopted.
The districting map that is decided by the Supreme Court will not be changed until the next census is counted.
Advantages of this proposal:
The current redistricting standard of "compact" in the phrase "compact and contiguous" is too vague. This proposal provides clearly defined rules to be followed.
This proposal forces Congressional districts to be drawn along pre-existing county and city lines, rather than arbitrary lines drawn purely for political advantage.
This proposal moves Congressional redistricting from the state legislatures to Congress.
Since Congressional redistricting directly affects the House of Representatives, they are given the primary responsibility for drawing the new district boundaries.
The individual members of the United States Senate are given the power to improve upon any state map that is created by the House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court has the ultimate power to decide which redistricting map best fits the rules.
Since the census is taken once every 10 years, the Congressional districts will not be changed more often than that.
The provision for appeal by the members of the Senate is unusual, but it has these benefits:
Decisions made by the House of Representatives can be motivated by partisan politics. Giving every member of the United States Senate the power to appeal any state's redistricting opens up the process to objections by the minority party.
Several alternative maps can be proposed for any given state. This answers the reply,. "If you don't like it, then show me something better!"
It is inspired by the classic problem of how to divide an irregularly-shaped piece of cake for two guests. The solution is to tell Guest A to cut the cake into two pieces, and then let Guest B choose which piece he wants. In the case of redistricting, if the House of Representatives does not follow the rules, all 100 members of the Senate have the opportunity to do a better job.
Disadvantages to this proposal:
The House of Representatives, rather than the 50 state legislatures, will forced to take time to draw the redistricting maps. Time spent by Congressmen is more valuable than time spent by state legislators.
The Supreme Court will be forced to take time every 10 years to decide which redistricting map best fits the rules.
Do you agree with this proposal? Is there really a need for change? Have I made some mistakes, or omitted any arguments?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
I am for REMOVING POWER from the political parties, and putting it where it belongs:
In the hands of THE PEOPLE.
"d) The districts within each state must be drawn so that they minimize the number of counties that contain more than two Congressional districts."
with e stating more than 3 districts. What happens in the cases of highly populated areas? Cook county has numerous districts, but if you take into consideration the population(of Chicago and other large suburbs), there is no way congress could adhere to the laws it is setting up in some cases. I know these are the exceptions, but there would be exceptions in almost every state.
Rule 2f was intended to help in these situations, by discouraging the division of cities into more than one district. Rule 2f would promote the creation of Congressional districts that include the Cook County suburbs, while other Congressional districts include portions of the city of Chicago. Some cities must be divided into separate districts in order to reach the exact district population of 653,647; but rule 2f should minimize the number of such divisions.
I have found that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts and http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp
provide maps of the 109th Congressional Districts, so you can easily see the extent of gerrymandering that exists today. It is apparent that districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 17 in Illinois are terribly gerrymandered!
While I agree with what you are trying to accomplish I have grave reservations concerning the method. First, this would require a constitutional amendment because the Supreme Court currently does not act except in instances of dispute and suit. Also, it would clearly cede power from the states to the federal.
I don't like to see power go that direction, preferably the other way!
Next, I believe it would be difficult to accomplish in certain rural western states like Idaho according to the formula.
Last, I question whether the need is actually there, to replace the cumbersome, problem laden system the founding fathers provided to us! I believe it still works and know it will not please everyone every time. In Idaho last time, the legislative districts were drawn by a bipartisan committee rather than the Legislature. I kink of liked that!
Yes, this would transfer Congressional redistricting power from the states to the federal government. Since Congressional seats are federal, I thought that it would be more appropriate to have Congressional districts assigned at the federal level. Also, I personally think that the state legislatures are like the minor leagues, while Capitol Hill is like the major leagues.
I looked at the two Congressional districts in Idaho, and I don't see any problem there. Idaho's District 1 has the west side of the state, and District 2 has the east side of the state. The district boundaries already follow the county lines. My recommendation would not have any effect in Idaho, because Idaho is already doing such a good job.
But look at the Congressional districts in Illinois or Texas!
If done by legislative district, you are right. Where I see the problem is with the districts and the splitting of cities and counties. Ada county boasts about a third of the people in the entire state at this time!