“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

James Bovard (1994)

In late December the US Census Bureau announced our nation’s 2010 population had grown to 308,745,538.  Buried in that figure are the relative changes in the populations of our fifty states.

As the Constitution mandates congressional seats be apportioned among the states based on a one-man-one-vote basis, certain states will gain representation while others will have their number of Congressional seats reduced.  Population shifts within states will also require the redrawing of Congressional districts.

In most states, governors and state legislators redraw House districts.  In twelve states, however, redistricting commissions (Iowa purports to use an “independent” commission) are assigned the task, generally subject to partisan state legislative approval.

Whatever the system, the individuals actually redrawing district lines are comprised exclusively of Republicans and Democrats, most with significant personal and/or party conflicts of interest. They willingly conspire to keep their work as private as possible in order to maintain maximum control over redistricting.

Retaining one’s seat and/or guarantying their party can control a House seat are paramount concerns at the expense of creating rational boundaries and a fair and balanced representation of the people.

These Democratic and Republican cartels have consciously excluded independents and representatives of third parties from the process.  For more than a century, their efforts have been more effective than ballot stuffing as a means of manipulating election results.

According to the United States Elections Project, in 2010 there were slightly over 218 million potentially eligible voters in the US.   Of that number there are approximately 170 million registered voters (78% of the eligible voter pool).

According a Gallup survey taken in the first quarter of 2010, party affiliations of registered voters broke down: 32% identified themselves as Democratic, 28% as Republican and 39% as independent or affiliated with a third party.

When taken as a percentage of the total voting population, the people likely to make the upcoming and critical redistricting decisions represent only 60% of registered voters and just 46% of the voter-eligible population … hardly representative!

Congress should act immediately to eliminate this unfair and undemocratic exploitation of the redistricting process … although it is unlikely to do so.

Such legislation, similar to the proposed Fairness and Independent Redistricting Act of 2005, should require:

1.       States to appoint truly independent Congressional redistricting commissions.

2.       Such commissions should guaranty independent and third-party representation at least proportional to their aggregate percentage of registered voters.

3.       Eligibility should be restricted to:

  • Registered voters who do not currently hold any public office or serve as an employee of any political party, PAC or candidate for election for public office at any time during the 4-year period ending on the 31st of December preceding the date of appointment;
  • Are not running for any public office; and
  • Certify they will not run as a candidate for a House seat until after the next subsequent apportionment of the House.

4.       Criteria for creating districts would require:

  • Adherence to “one-man-one-vote” and other requirements imposed under the Constitution, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and relevant Federal laws.
  • Ensuring populations of all Congressional districts are consistent throughout the state.
  • Geographic continuity of political subdivisions within the state with priority given to not dividing counties or parishes, municipalities and neighborhoods between Congressional districts unless absolutely necessary.
  • Compact districts that are contiguous, except to the extent necessary to include any area which is surrounded by a body of water.

5.       Considerations that may not be taken into consideration, except to the extent necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act:

  • The voting history of the population of a Congressional district.
  • The political party affiliation of the population of a district.
  • The residence of incumbent Members of the House of Representatives in the State.

6.       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 Courts will address the disenfranchisement of all but the Democrats and Republicans who have coopted the redistricting system for far too long!.

January 14, 2011