Thursday, January 31, 2008
Editorial: Virginia needs redistricting reform
A bipartisan package is advancing. What Virginia really needs is a nonpartisan reform to completely remove party interests from the process.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Against all odds, momentum for changing the extremely partisan method of drawing congressional and legislative districts in Virginia appears to be growing.
On Tuesday, Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and the Virginia Chamber of Commerce endorsed a bill proposed by Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath County, and a Senate committee advanced the legislation.
Should the bill pass the Senate, as expected, proponents are less optimistic about its prospects in the House of Delegates.
But the split in power between a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House remains the best opportunity in a generation to eliminate the decennial exercise in partisan gerrymandering designed to protect incumbents and give whichever party is currently in power an advantage.
Deeds' bill combines elements of both Democratic and Republican proposals.
It would create a seven-member advisory committee that would draw up redistricting maps based on the same nonpartisan criteria used successfully in Iowa for decades: population equality, contiguity, unity of cities and counties, and compactness.
Deeds' proposal is so superior to the current hyper-partisan system, we hesitate to criticize. But there won't be many chances to get this right, and Deeds' bill doesn't.
Under the proposal, the General Assembly would appoint a seven-member advisory committee. Three members would be appointed by Democrats. Three would be appointed by Republicans. Those six would choose a seventh member, an independent chairman.
This isn't nonpartisan; it's bipartisan. There's no argument that the two major political parties now dominate Virginia politics. But that may not always be the case. More important, that unchallengeable dominance is not in the best interest of the commonwealth.
Ideally, a new redistricting process would take party involvement completely out of the picture.
Del. Ward Armstrong, DHenry County, introduced a proposal last session that comes far closer to that goal than Deeds' bill.
Armstrong's proposal would have created a three-member panel of special masters drawn from a pool of 24 retired judges selected by the Supreme Court. Majority and minority leaders of the General Assembly would narrow the pool of 24 to three (the elegant trick being they must advance judges who are not in their party). Random chance also plays a role in the process.
Deeds' proposal also falls down by allowing lawmakers to amend the map submitted by the advisory commission. Only public pressure to follow the commission's recommendation would temper the urge to redraw the map for partisan gain. It's doubtful that pressure would be sufficient.
Even if Deeds' bill passes, a constitutional amendment ultimately will be needed to make it more difficult for future politicians to revert to their gerrymandering ways.
Perhaps that will be the opportunity to get it right, and create a truly nonpartisan process that can't be hijacked by the party in power.
