If the Founders could do it all over again, might they
look at the House of Representatives today and wonder,
"What were we thinking?"
When our forefathers gathered in Philadelphia to
write the Constitution, they had high hopes for the
House's contribution to democracy. They made House members
stand for election every two years so they would reflect
popular opinion. Senators were given the luxury of six-year
terms so they could deliberate with less of an eye
toward electoral whim. The Senate was the saucer to cool
the House's coffee.
For better or worse, that's more or less how Congress
behaved for the first couple of centuries. Fifty years ago, the
biggest obstacle to social and political progress in America was
the U.S. Senate. Back when it took 67 votes to break a filibuster,
the Senate was less the saucer than the little round hole in the
Starbucks trash bin where the House's coffee was thrown out.
In the last decade or two, however, the House and Senate
have reversed roles. Because senators are elected statewide and
Senate rules force members to work out their differences, the
Senate tends to more accurately reflect the broader public's
views. Because House members are elected in increasingly
polarized districts -- and House rules severely limit debate and
amendments, making it harder for members to work out their
differences -- the House has become the world's greatest deliberative
trash bin.
Sadly, the political ethos of the House is infecting the rest
of the body politic. Take-no-prisoners politics began wrecking
the House in the late 1980s. It sank to unimaginable depths
during the impeachment of President Clinton, and evolved
into a brass-knuckled shakedown in former Majority Leader
Tom DeLay's heyday. When House members graduated to the
Senate, some of them took their harsh partisan instincts to the
upper chamber.
In the House, DeLay launched an unprecedented and successful
effort to redraw congressional districts year after year to
maximize partisan advantage for the Republicans. If DeLay
had gone on to the Senate, he no doubt would have tried to
redraw state boundaries every few years to achieve the highest
possible number of red states.
The Supreme Court's refusal to overturn the DeLay gerrymander
in Texas suggests that another firewall has fallen. From
now on, both parties will feel compelled to take the same politics
that has brought down the House to every state capital in
America. Instead of doing the job people elected them to do,
state legislators will spend all their time fighting over how to
draw safe congressional districts so
that members of Congress don't have
to do the job people elect them to do.
Redistricting was at the root of
DeLay's downfall, and may well be at
the root of Washington's as well. In
recent years, redistricting has made districts
more polarized, homogeneous,
and friendly to entrenched incumbents.
Competitive districts in which
incumbents actually have to earn reelection
are becoming an endangered species.
Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) has proposed legislation to
require every state to take the politics out of redistricting.
Under Tanner's plan, each state would have to appoint an
independent commission that couldn't take partisan outcomes
into account.
Stopping the spread of DeLayism may demand even
more far-reaching measures. A recent bipartisan proposal to
give new House seats to both the District of Columbia and
Utah averts a mid-decade redistricting battle by having the
new Utah member run statewide. Why not go all the way
and turn half of all House seats into at-large districts? If half
of every congressional delegation had to run statewide, it
would sharply reduce the potential for gerrymandering, and
every member would have to compete in a bigger, less homogeneous
district.
Such a system would probably have little or no predictable
impact on the partisan breakdown of the House. In the seven
small states with at-large members today, both parties have
done proportionally better at breaking the red-blue barrier in
the House than in the Senate. Two of the five at-large House
members from red states are Democrats, compared with just
16 out of 62 senators from red states. One of the two at-large
members from blue states is a Republican, compared with
only nine out of 38 senators from blue states.
Running statewide or in larger districts would make all
candidates work harder to earn their keep. This year,
Democratic Senate challengers face an uphill battle, but they
have Republicans on the run in tough states like Missouri and
Tennessee. In the House, Democrats could end up running a
great campaign, winning the popular vote, and still falling
short of a majority because of the way districts are drawn.
Anyone who thinks we can just beat DeLay at his own
game is only playing into the hands of DeLayism. Despite
the Founders' best efforts, the game is rigged. It's time to
give the House back to the people.
