DLC State & Local Playbook

One of the big, troubling trends in national politics is the gradual disappearance of truly competitive congressional districts. In Blueprint magazine last year, Jennifer Duffy and Amy Walter of the authoritative Cook Political Report starkly documented how this trend has accelerated over the last decade. In the months leading up to the 2002 elections, they reported, "we showed 40 seats as competitive; our final October issue showed just 45. ... Ten years ago, during the last redistricting period, The Cook Political Report's summer issue showed 136 seats as competitive, while the final issue before the election listed 151."

The rapid decline in marginal districts has greatly contributed to the polarization of the national political parties, the inability of Congress to address big national challenges, and the chronic tone of partisan warfare in Washington. Ironically, the branch of Congress intended by the Founders to serve as "the people's House" is becoming increasingly insulated from public opinion, as the vast majority of its members do not effectively have to run for re-election. That is why a national electorate is dominated by moderates is "represented" in Congress by so many ideologues of the left and, especially, the right.

"The political repercussions of redistricting are likely to be seen over the next few elections. In the absence of any sort of national tide (say an economic or international debacle), we will once again have few seats in play-perhaps fewer than during the 2002 cycle." -- Jennifer E. Duffy and Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report

There is no question that redistricting is the primary culprit in this development. In part due to the wide availability of redistricting software that has made politically motivated line-drawing an exact science, and in part because of the steady abandonment of such traditional redistricting principles as compactness, contiguity, community of interest, and respect for local government boundaries, partisan gerrymandering is at an all-time high. Moreover, in states where neither party has control of the redistricting process, bipartisan back-scratching arrangements that protect all incumbents have become increasingly common.

But there is a backlash brewing against partisan and incumbent-protection redistricting, as reflected in the states that have decided to take redistricting out of partisan politics through independent commissions. Four states -- Arizona, Hawaii, Washington, and New Jersey -- give such commissions first and final say over congressional districting decisions. Others, like Montana, assign independent commissions the primary role in drawing lines, subject to legislative approval. Still others, like Indiana, use commissions as a second resort if the usual legislative process deadlocks. An even larger array of states -- 12 at present -- have adopted an independent commission approach to redistricting state legislatures, in recognition of the inherent conflict of interest involved when incumbents must draw their own district lines.

Iowa provides an especially interesting system for congressional redistricting because it focuses on the criteria for redistricting rather than the nonpartisan character of those who draw the lines. As such, it may provide a fruitful example for legislators who do not want to give up the authority to draw lines, or who cannot trust the genuine independence of "independent" commissions, but who understand the negative impact of partisan or incumbent-protection approaches.

In Iowa, the lines are drawn by legislative staff, and are implemented through the traditional process of legislative adoption with gubernatorial approval. But Iowa law requires use of the old-fashioned redistricting principles of compactness, contiguity, and respect for local government boundaries, and more importantly, prohibits partisan considerations. It is no accident that four of Iowa's five congressional districts were competitive in 2002 after the latest redistricting -- a larger number of competitive House seats than in New York and California combined.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it clear for the present that there is no federal constitutional bar to purely partisan or incumbent-protection motives for congressional redistricting. Congress theoretically has the power to regulate its own districts, but has rarely done so. It is up to the states to deal with this threat to truly representative government. Whether they do so through independent redistricting commissions or state laws that prescribe nonpartisan line drawing, the time to act is now, before the partisan stakes in the next decennial round of redistricting rise.

Resources For Action

The National Conference of State Legislatures' summary of nonpartisan redistricting systems
www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/redistrict/com&alter.htm

An outline description of the Iowa redistricting system
www.legis.state.ia.us/Central/LSB/Guides/redist.htm

Arizona Proposition 106, 2000
www.sosaz.com/election/2000/Info/pubpamphlet/
english/prop106.pdf

Additional Reading

Jennifer Duffy and Amy Walter, "How the Hill Was Lost," Blueprint, Jan/Feb. 2003
www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251224
&kaid=127&subid=176

Mark Gersh, "The Republicans' Great Gerrymander," Blueprint, May/June 2003
www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251791
&kaid=127&subid=177

Contacts

Tim Storey
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
(303) 364-7700
tim.story@ndsl.org

Rep. Phillip Wise
503 Grand Avenue
Keokuk, IA 52632
(515) 281-3221
philip_wise@legis.state.ia.us

Ed Kilgore
Policy Director
Democratic Leadership Council
600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 547-0001
(202) 544-5002 (fax)
ekilgore@dlcppi.org

NDOL.org Keywords: Redistricting Play