“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
James Bovard (1994)
By the 2010 census, our nation’s population had grown to 308,745,538. Buried in that figure are changes in the populations of the fifty states. The Constitution mandates Congressional seats be apportioned among the states based on population and on a one-man-one-vote basis. Accordingly, certain states will gain representation while others will have fewer seats in Congress. Population shifts within states will also require the redrawing of Congressional districts.
Before the end of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on two important redistricting cases, Vesilind et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections and Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections; a continuation of the Court’s effort to eliminate racial gerrymandering. Certain Justices have expressed frustration that unless they clearly define what is allowed and what is not, they could be left with what Justice Stephen Breyer called “a set of standards that district courts can’t apply, which will try to separate sheep from goats.”
While the Supreme Court will look to the Voting Rights Act which requires redistricting reflect equal population “as nearly as is practicable” and racial and ethnic fairness; what the Court and Congress have failed to address, and which the Court could finally rectify is the conscious and systematic exclusion of Americans not affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties from the redistricting process.
Governors and state legislators, or in twelve states so-called “independent” commissions, redraw House districts. Whatever system states employ, individuals on redistricting committees are exclusively Republicans or Democrats … whose conflicts of interest too often include ensuring current House members retain their seats and/or guarantying one party can control a House seat at the expense of creating logical boundaries and truly inclusive representation on such bodies.
According to Politico, there are 200 million registered voters in 2016. A recent Gallup poll indicates only 29% are registered Democrats and 26% are registered Republicans while 44% are registered as Independents, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists or are affiliated with other “third” parties. Yet, a Democratic/Republican cartel has deliberately excluded independents and representatives of third parties from the all-important redistricting process.
Although Congress passed the Fairness and Independent Redistricting Act of 2005, it failed to address the disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to the Republican or Democratic parties!
The two current cases before the Court provide a unique opportunity to at last establish universal guidelines for fair and equitable redistricting guidelines and truly open up the process to all Americans.
Such standards should require states to appoint truly independent Congressional redistricting commissions and such commissions should guaranty independent and third party representation at least proportional to their aggregate percentage of registered voters.
Eligibility should be restricted to registered voters who do not currently hold any publicly-elective office nor currently serve as an employee of any political party; are not running for any publicly-elective office; and will certify they will not run as a candidate for a House seat until two years after the subsequent redistricting decisions.
Criteria for creating districts should require adherence to “one-man-one-vote” and other requirements imposed under the Constitution, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and relevant Federal laws; ensure populations of all Congressional districts are consistent throughout the state insofar as possible; require geographic continuity of political subdivisions within the state with priority given to minimizing the dividing of counties, parishes, municipalities and neighborhoods between Congressional districts unless absolutely necessary; and, except to the extent necessary to include any area which is surrounded by a body of water, guarantee compact districts that are contiguous.
Considerations that should not be taken into consideration, except to the extent necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act, are the voting history of a Congressional district; past or current political party affiliations of the population of a district; or the residence of current or prospective candidates for or incumbent members of the House of Representatives in the state.
The ultimate approval of the final redistricting plan by the Supreme Court of each state; subject to an override by a vote of not less than 75% of the state legislature.
Absent Congress’ testicular fortitude to address the current partisan and self-serving system, we can only hope the Court will take this opportunity to address and correct the disenfranchisement of not only minorities but also of the much larger population of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties during redistricting.
