Should state legislative districts been drawn by independent commissions?

[Del Tachi]

No thank you, I would prefer that my representation not be determined by unelected bureaucrats.  At least my state legislator is directly accountable to me and I can punish him for drawing a "bad map" at the ballot box. 

[politicallefty]

And they don't obviate other ways to express popular discontent. For example Maryland had a referendum on our 2010 redistricting. It upheld it,  showing the state broadly approved of it. In most states, in fact, statewide officers have to approve any redrawing of the lines. And most states have a way to put such issues on the ballot for ratification.

I know I can refute all of your points that appear to support partisan gerrymandering, but this one stood out. Are you really surprised that a strongly Democratic state voted to maintain an extremely partisan gerrymander? I'm sure the majority of Maryland voters would have been just as happy with an 8D-0R gerrymander. As a partisan Democrat, I'd prefer to see California send 53 Democrats and zero Republicans to the House. However, I'm someone that realizes that that would be unfair and unrepresentative of the state. As such, I like what the redistricting commission has done (despite the fact that it is unilateral disarmament on our side). If it is up to the voters of an entire state to choose its entire representation, you might as well have at-large elections.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Multi-member districts, 3-5 members each, with a ranked ballot and some rules about how districts are to be drawn. It would mean that more voters would feel represented by somebody elected in their district, and it would decrease the effect of voters of one party being packed into dense cities and voters of another party being more spread out.

[The_Doctor]

And they don't obviate other ways to express popular discontent. For example Maryland had a referendum on our 2010 redistricting. It upheld it,  showing the state broadly approved of it. In most states, in fact, statewide officers have to approve any redrawing of the lines. And most states have a way to put such issues on the ballot for ratification.

I know I can refute all of your points that appear to support partisan gerrymandering, but this one stood out. Are you really surprised that a strongly Democratic state voted to maintain an extremely partisan gerrymander? I'm sure the majority of Maryland voters would have been just as happy with an 8D-0R gerrymander. As a partisan Democrat, I'd prefer to see California send 53 Democrats and zero Republicans to the House. However, I'm someone that realizes that that would be unfair and unrepresentative of the state. As such, I like what the redistricting commission has done (despite the fact that it is unilateral disarmament on our side). If it is up to the voters of an entire state to choose its entire representation, you might as well have at-large elections.

I apologize for responding so late.

No, I'm not surprised. But my point is that it was the will of the state to have that partisan gerrymandering, even though as a Republican, it hurts me. I don't think it's unfair if California has a partisan Democratic gerrymander, because I think that's the general sentiment of the voters of California.

My point is that the will of the voters can be expressed to uphold or reject a gerrymander. They should have the power to express an opinion, and if it's upheld, it should stay. I just think the states should have the power to vote up or down a redistricting plan every ten years, and that's a fair way to exercise a democratic voice on what the map is like. I don't support the states doing "at large" elections for Congress Members (though it's been done before).

And the point of us being a republic is that we ask our elected lawmakers, on our behalf, to make decisions for us. That includes drawing district lines. This is, for better or worse, far more representative than anything else.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But that's essentially to say that it can be the honestly expressed will of the people to distort the people's ability to honestly express their will through their representatives. That's what opponents of gerrymandering have a problem with.

[muon2]

I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.

For those who want to take away the process of individual legislators using their power within the legislative body to suit their personal interests, it succeeds. For those who want to maintain control by the legislative body, it does that, too.

It's actually quite similar to the normal legislative process by which a state creates a task force to study a subject and report back with specific recommendations. The details of the report are not driven by the legislature except through the statutory criteria established to charge the task force. The decision to implement any of the recommendations then returns to the elected body for an up or down vote.

[politicallefty]

I apologize for responding so late.

No, I'm not surprised. But my point is that it was the will of the state to have that partisan gerrymandering, even though as a Republican, it hurts me. I don't think it's unfair if California has a partisan Democratic gerrymander, because I think that's the general sentiment of the voters of California.

My point is that the will of the voters can be expressed to uphold or reject a gerrymander. They should have the power to express an opinion, and if it's upheld, it should stay. I just think the states should have the power to vote up or down a redistricting plan every ten years, and that's a fair way to exercise a democratic voice on what the map is like. I don't support the states doing "at large" elections for Congress Members (though it's been done before).

And the point of us being a republic is that we ask our elected lawmakers, on our behalf, to make decisions for us. That includes drawing district lines. This is, for better or worse, far more representative than anything else.

If gerrymandering is to occur, the point of having individual districts is effectively defeated. When entire regions are effectively torn up for partisan advantage, the people are not being fairly represented. Extreme gerrymanders can put the opposition in power over the will of the majority (I'd note the NY State Senate as one example). At the federal level, the gerrymanders in PA and MI thwart the will of the people. Even in otherwise barely Republican-leaning NC, Democrats won 51% of the House vote in 2012, yet only won 4/13 seats.

I can understand your hesitation with having independent commissions. However, partisan gerrymandering can cement a party's majority for the decade or even longer. I do believe that is fundamentally unfair and a conflict of interest. Putting it up as a referendum wouldn't necessarily work though. It's basically a process issue, one where the vast majority either doesn't care about or isn't able to understand (such as the filibuster). And, like I basically said before, in states with strong partisan leanings, a referendum is a foregone conclusion. I do believe the US is the only modern democracy that retains this system of redistricting whereby elected officials can draw their own districts.

I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.

I think that's a very reasonable compromise. However, my biggest concern would be with the criteria being set by the legislature. For example, what would prevent a legislature from requiring that two incumbents cannot be placed in the same district? I think allowing the legislature to set criteria grants too much deference. Deference to the legislature has effectively ruined Florida's redistricting reform.

If you're talking about something closer to Iowa's setup, I would have a very hard time opposing it. As I understand it, election and incumbent data is barred from consideration. I think those are absolute requirements for a fair redistricting scheme.

[muon2]

I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.

I think that's a very reasonable compromise. However, my biggest concern would be with the criteria being set by the legislature. For example, what would prevent a legislature from requiring that two incumbents cannot be placed in the same district? I think allowing the legislature to set criteria grants too much deference. Deference to the legislature has effectively ruined Florida's redistricting reform.

If you're talking about something closer to Iowa's setup, I would have a very hard time opposing it. As I understand it, election and incumbent data is barred from consideration. I think those are absolute requirements for a fair redistricting scheme.

My suggestion is more like IA than FL. The FL plan was drawn by the legislature under the guidance of their law and the result was not unlike MI which did the same thing starting in the 2000 cycle. It is interesting to note that the MI criteria in 2000 and 2010 were the same ones used from 1970-1990, but back then they were in the hands of an independent mapper due to the divided government at the time. Only when they passed to legislative mappers did the power to gerrymander even with the statutes become apparent.

The issue of whether or not political criteria should be considered is debated and different states creating independent commissions have turned up on different sides of the issue. Most would agree that criteria that are based on individual candidates should not be used. That sentiment isn't as true when one wants to test a plan for partisan fairness or responsiveness to electoral swings through a reasonable number of competitive districts. AZ explicitly includes political data to make those tests, but CA excludes that data. I contend that intelligent mappers and map readers will know the general political impact of a plan, even if the data isn't there to confirm it, so why not put the information out there for all to see.

[publicunofficial]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfTb_pKiEoY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The purpose of the house is to represent the people and it cannot do that if the map is gerrymandered. Even if the "reflects the state" argument was valid, it would fall because if a state legislature is likewise gerrymandered to the point where you can win 55% and still lose, then there is no effective means for the people to express that will, and an up or down vote hardly gives a reasonable check because they can just draw another map that is likewise bad.

The NC gerrymander is the second version. The first one raised objections on VRA grounds from Representative Butterfield and the hope was the legislature would ease up some figuring drawing as good a map that answered the challenges would be impossible. The Democrats went in on a pair of tens and the legislature drew a flush, litterally. They produced the current map, which was even worse, yet it answered all the objections.

Only a non-partisan or bi-partisan (though not as much) process can ensure a good result. Massachusetts is monolithic and should be 9-0. Maryland is not and has significant regions of GOP strength in rural areas and suburban Baltimore that should be represnted. Slicing the state up like spaghetti will mean that the districts don't represent any community, or interest thereoff since they have no sense of community. Instead, they will vote the PVI and thus you got representatives of rural MD voting based on what Montco wants not what Hagerstown or Frederick would need. THat is extremely bad for democracy.

[andrew_c]

Yes.  Electoral boundaries drawn by independent commissions are more representative of the population than electoral boundaries drawn by legislators.

[Mister Mets]

I'm concerned about how the independent commissions get selected, but it's hardly going to be worse than letting the incumbents figure this all out.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, duh.  It's fairer, and it will go much further than term limits would.

I'm thinking about petitioning for an amendment in Michigan on this.

[krazen1211]

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

Okay, I get why you're suggesting Maryland specifically, but, in general, by what imaginable standard does that not create a whole cornucopia of perverse incentives?

[Flake]

Yeah, duh.  It's fairer, and it will go much further than term limits would.

I'm thinking about petitioning for an amendment in Michigan on this.

RIP Republican control of Michigan legislature.

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

[krazen1211]

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

Okay, I get why you're suggesting Maryland specifically, but, in general, by what imaginable standard does that not create a whole cornucopia of perverse incentives?

Create? The power already exists and has existed for centuries. It merely has not been exercised in the manner I describe.

In anycase, the power to district and redistrict is far less nefarious than the power to gift the treasury to one's supporters, which of course has a limitless cornucopia of perverse incentives attached. The founders wisely warned against the power of the purse for a reason.

[krazen1211]

Yeah, duh.  It's fairer, and it will go much further than term limits would.

I'm thinking about petitioning for an amendment in Michigan on this.

RIP Republican control of Michigan legislature.

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

Who is this lady exactly and what does she have to do with the times, places, and manners clause?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

Okay, I get why you're suggesting Maryland specifically, but, in general, by what imaginable standard does that not create a whole cornucopia of perverse incentives?

Create? The power already exists and has existed for centuries. It merely has not been exercised in the manner I describe.

In anycase, the power to district and redistrict is far less nefarious than the power to gift the treasury to one's supporters, which of course has a limitless cornucopia of perverse incentives attached. The founders wisely warned against the power of the purse for a reason.

This is another one of your posts where none of the sentences has anything to do with any of the others. Maybe you should see a doctor and get that checked out. You might be coming down with something chronic.

[krazen1211]

Congress can draw its own districts. I would suggest that Congress perform redistricting in Maryland.

Okay, I get why you're suggesting Maryland specifically, but, in general, by what imaginable standard does that not create a whole cornucopia of perverse incentives?

Create? The power already exists and has existed for centuries. It merely has not been exercised in the manner I describe.

In anycase, the power to district and redistrict is far less nefarious than the power to gift the treasury to one's supporters, which of course has a limitless cornucopia of perverse incentives attached. The founders wisely warned against the power of the purse for a reason.

This is another one of your posts where none of the sentences has anything to do with any of the others. Maybe you should see a doctor and get that checked out. You might be coming down with something chronic.

I would submit that you are merely confused. Although I cannot imagine why. If one believes Congress has the authority to mandate single member districts, why would Congress not have the authority to mandate a specific set of single member districts?

It is certainly peculiar to object to a system that has functioned for centuries merely because a certain political party and its voters were considered wretched and vile in the 2014 elections.

[politicallefty]

Okay, I get why you're suggesting Maryland specifically, but, in general, by what imaginable standard does that not create a whole cornucopia of perverse incentives?

Based on his posting history (one of extreme partisan hypocrisy), he only chose Maryland because it was a Democratic gerrymander. He wants Congress to intervene and overturn Democratic gerrymanders while leaving Republicans to gerrymander as they please all across the country. In other words, North Carolina should be free to draw a Republican gerrymander as it chooses, but Maryland's Democratic gerrymander should not be allowed. (Democratic gerrymanders should be disallowed, but Republican ones are perfectly fine.)

That is, unless he is proposing Congress take redistricting authority over all 50 states. I do believe that under the Constitution that that would be a power granted to Congress (and, of course, subject to the President's veto). Picking and choosing which states should be drawn individually would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause, at least if one is consistent with the striking down of Section 4(b) of the VRA. I see no way that the Constitution would allow Congress to single out certain states without some objective criteria that did not violate the Equal Protection Clause (although even Section 4(b) was based on objective criteria, albeit older, rather than singling out certain states).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yeah, duh.  It's fairer, and it will go much further than term limits would.

I'm thinking about petitioning for an amendment in Michigan on this.

RIP Republican control of Michigan legislature.

Michigan is still a close state, so I don't think that's such a sure thing as you think.  But if that's the price we have to pay to have fair representation, then so be it.