April 05, 2011 11:55 PM UTC

Redistricting: Think Big!

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

The Joint Select Committee on redistricting here in Colorado, which we’ve affectionately nicknamed the “Kumbaya Committee” for the winsome attempt to reach a bipartisan solution on a singularly partisan matter, is moving along their process, and hopefully we’ll see some actual maps soon. So it’s a good time to take a look at how redistricting is shaping up around the country. We noted this Politico story from the middle of March, and you probably should too:

House Republican leaders won’t acknowledge it publicly, but the outline of the GOP’s national strategy for drawing new congressional maps is taking shape. The operating principle: Don’t get greedy.

Flush with their biggest House majority in more than 60 years and with memories of the last round of redistricting coloring their outlook, Republicans are seeking to lock in their November gains rather than pursue a go-for-broke approach designed to expand beyond their current numbers.

Instead of pushing GOP-controlled state legislatures to turn the screws on incumbent Democrats, a review of early redistricting action and interviews with key Republican players reveal that the goal is protecting the 242 seats they won in November – and cementing a 218-seat majority for the next decade…

The play-it-safe strategy is in large part a response to the GOP’s historic 63-seat gain in 2010. That’s the most seats either party has picked up since 1948, and it represents Republicans’ high-water mark since 1946. Now, the main objective is to safeguard as many of them as possible. [Pols emphasis]

You can understand why Republicans would want to avoid what was broadly perceived to be overreach in many states–including Colorado–during the last redistricting cycle, both for the political consequences, as well as the possibility of endangering the large gains made by Republicans in the last election. It’s a shrewd position, reflective of their momentary strength.

The problem is, that’s not what redistricting is supposed to be about.

Districts are redrawn every ten years to reflect the changes in local population during the intervening period, and create both geographically and culturally representative districts. They are dynamic, not static. They are supposed to change. In Colorado, the map selected ten years ago by a judge after the legislature’s process broke down was not necessarily the best reflection of the electorate it divided even then, as Republicans themselves argued when they unconstitutionally tried to substitute their own later. Why is it the best starting point today?

This is what we think should be the priority of the “Kumbaya Committee” as they begin to exchange proposed maps, and those maps begin to make their way into the public sphere–you can even make your own map using online tools. Instead of falling into the semantic trap of static districts that need to “gain” or “lose” population, why not start with a map with no congressional district lines at all, and figure out what serves all areas of the state best?

We don’t really think this is a partisan concept, but based on what we read above, maybe it is.