No matter how you cut it, all forms of redistricting are gerrymandering. There is just no way around it. The people selecting the lines will always do so to favor the political outcome they want. So let’s make sure that the people drawing the lines are held accountable. Efforts to remove accountability from redistricting are the only thing worse than gerrymandering.
A new amendment to the Virginia Constitution has been proposed and will be heard this coming General Assembly session. It tries hard to create a bipartisan effort to cut out gerrymandering. But all it really does is stop the voters from holding the people who draw the new lines accountable for their actions.
From an Op-Ed in The Virginia-Pilot by the two of the authors of the proposed amendment:
As a practical matter, our committee understands that the legislature traditionally has a role in redistricting. Preserving some of that influence is an important part of the compromise in this constitutional amendment. The General Assembly would have a role in selecting the commission, but no hand in drawing the lines. That task is assigned to the citizens commission.
Recognizing that politics is inherent in the process, the commission would be made up of three Republicans, three Democrats, and four independent voters. To get that result, a committee of retired judges would first select five Republicans, five Democrats, and 12 independents from applications open to any registered Virginia voter. Then the leadership of both parties in the General Assembly would reduce those 22 nominees to the final 10-member commission, using a strike process similar to jury selection.
As a matter of principle, the resulting commission would be required to draw election districts based on fair criteria, free of the taint of partisan gerrymandering. The criteria in the amendment include that no district should favor or disfavor any party or candidate; that districts should follow city and county lines as much as possible; and that no district should be drawn to diminish minority voting choice.
So as a practical matter, the legislature will still push for their partisan choices. As a political matter, the independents selected are unlikely to be completely non-partisan. “As a matter of principle, the resulting commission would be required to draw election districts based on fair criteria, free of the taint of partisan gerrymandering” is just pie in the sky. If no district can “favor or disfavor any party or candidate” then political partisanship will be a requirement to look at. For “districts [to] follow city and county lines as much as possible” then population clusters will be problematic and “as much as possible” will be used as a cop out to create the districts per political consideration. And “and that no district should be drawn to diminish minority voting choice” means that identity politics will be a requirement that will shift lines to look like salamanders.
So in short, the usual problems will still be there. But the huge difference is that the new commission will not have to stand before the public to defend their choices and then be held accountable through an election. The people will have no way to keep the newly partisan selected committee of partisans in-check.
All redistricting is gerrymandering, so the ultimate question will always be; how much gerrymandering is too much gerrymandering and therefore unconstitutional? That answer should always be sought on a case-by-case basis.
Taking accountability out of the redistricting process is the wrong approach. The ideal solution is to elect honest men and women who will draw lines that make sense geographically. The voters can then hold their representatives accountable for their actions at the next election. It matters who we nominate and it matters who we elect. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Honesty and integrity are the best choices. Pretending that an unaccountable body will be free of political partisanship is naive.
