Legislative gridlock is with us.
There are several explanations for our dysfunctional politics. One major explanation is the partisan process of decennial redistricting of state and congressional legislative districts. Redistricting is not well understood by the general public and is not high on the list of concerns of the typical voter. Yet it has profound implications for the practical politics of governing and addressing issues that are important to ordinary citizens.
The process in most states, including Wisconsin, allows lawmakers to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around. The result is a decrease in the number of truly competitive districts, and an increasing number of state and congressional districts that are predominantly either Republican or Democratic. This results in diminished incentive for legislators to work across party lines, and increased incentive to play to the dominant base of that district.
In brief, here's how it works. The 435 members of congress are apportioned across the nation so that each member represents approximately the same number of citizens. For example, with a population of some 300 million, each congressman represents approximately 690,000 citizens. In Wisconsin, with a population of some 5 million people, each of our 99 Assemblymen represents something more than 50,000 people.
Over time, not only does population increase, but some areas grow faster than others. Some states gain congressmen and others lose. And for each lawmaker to represent approximately the same number of people, the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts have to be changed every ten years following the US Census.
State legislatures are responsible for changing both state legislative districts and congressional districts. The party holding the majority during redistricting time has the power to set the new boundaries. And human nature being what it is, the incentive for those in power is to set the boundaries in ways that maximize the probability that they remain in power.
Let's use our own Green County as an example. Prior to redistricting in 2010, the 80th Assembly District encompassed the whole of Green County and fringes of Lafayette, Dane, and Rock counties. The district's largest municipality, Monroe, was the geographic and demographic center of the district. It made geographic, demographic, and economic sense. And the old 80th district was one of the more competitive districts in the state. Candidates for office had to be able to speak to, and be responsible, to both Democrats and Republicans.
After redistricting of 2010, Green County was carved up into three different assembly districts and, with it, three state senatorial districts. The more Democratic northern half of Green County, along with southern Dane, was slotted into a district to the north already held by a Democrat. The southeastern part of Green County was slotted into a district held by our former Democratic Assembly representative. Monroe and the southwestern part of Green County, arguably the most Republican part of the old district, was slotted into a district to the west already held by a Republican incumbent.
In addition, Monroe, the largest municipality of the new 51st Assembly District, is on the extreme southeastern fringe of that reconstituted district that reaches over to Lafayette County and snakes north to Iowa County and includes parts of Richland and Sauk Counties. Our new state senate district goes west to the Mississippi River, and snakes north nearly half way up the state to Juneau County.
These new districts make no economic or demographic sense. But the greater mischief is that it reduces the competitiveness of the legislative districts. The Wisconsin Republicans have increased the probability that they will remain in power for much of the next decade. Now if you are a Republican, you might think this is a good thing.
But, think again. Even if the Democrats would do the same thing if they were in power doesn't make it right. And besides, most citizens, including those who favor one party or the other, are not that gung-ho partisan. Most citizens simply want their state and congressional legislators to talk rationally to each other, work across party lines with the give-and-take that goes with legislating, and deal with the issues that need addressing. Stop the gridlock and get the job done.
Redistricting in such a way that reduces competitiveness reduces incentives of legislators to deal with the other party because they are likely to get elected anyway.
Can redistricting be reformed? Political scientists assert that Iowa has a superior system. A non-partisan commission recommends the districts, taking into account as much as practical, county, municipal and regional boundaries. The legislature still has to buy off, but at least the initial plan is neither Republican nor Democratic. Naturally, some districts may still be predominantly Republican or Democratic. But they were not gerrymandered with the intent of retaining power of one party or the other.
It is encouraging that there is a statewide effort on the part of public interest organizations to change Wisconsin's redistricting process. Editorials of Wisconsin's major newspapers have got on board, including those of Milwaukee, Green Bay, Chippewa Falls, Beloit, LaCrosse, Wisconsin Rapids, Oshkosh, Kenosha, and Appleton, home town of Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, no less.
The Janesville Gazette and Madison's Wisconsin State Journal are behind the effort. I often take issue with the worthies who edit these two regional papers, but one must applaud them when they are spot on regarding something as important as redistricting.
If redistricting is to be accomplished, it has to be near the beginning of the decade. This reduces the number of legislators who have a vested interest in retaining office a decade hence. And it reduces the predictability of who will be in power a decade hence.
This issue may seem abstract, but it has practical implications for the average citizen. We need to press our state legislators to get on with the task of redistricting reform.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Tmes. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
There are several explanations for our dysfunctional politics. One major explanation is the partisan process of decennial redistricting of state and congressional legislative districts. Redistricting is not well understood by the general public and is not high on the list of concerns of the typical voter. Yet it has profound implications for the practical politics of governing and addressing issues that are important to ordinary citizens.
The process in most states, including Wisconsin, allows lawmakers to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around. The result is a decrease in the number of truly competitive districts, and an increasing number of state and congressional districts that are predominantly either Republican or Democratic. This results in diminished incentive for legislators to work across party lines, and increased incentive to play to the dominant base of that district.
In brief, here's how it works. The 435 members of congress are apportioned across the nation so that each member represents approximately the same number of citizens. For example, with a population of some 300 million, each congressman represents approximately 690,000 citizens. In Wisconsin, with a population of some 5 million people, each of our 99 Assemblymen represents something more than 50,000 people.
Over time, not only does population increase, but some areas grow faster than others. Some states gain congressmen and others lose. And for each lawmaker to represent approximately the same number of people, the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts have to be changed every ten years following the US Census.
State legislatures are responsible for changing both state legislative districts and congressional districts. The party holding the majority during redistricting time has the power to set the new boundaries. And human nature being what it is, the incentive for those in power is to set the boundaries in ways that maximize the probability that they remain in power.
Let's use our own Green County as an example. Prior to redistricting in 2010, the 80th Assembly District encompassed the whole of Green County and fringes of Lafayette, Dane, and Rock counties. The district's largest municipality, Monroe, was the geographic and demographic center of the district. It made geographic, demographic, and economic sense. And the old 80th district was one of the more competitive districts in the state. Candidates for office had to be able to speak to, and be responsible, to both Democrats and Republicans.
After redistricting of 2010, Green County was carved up into three different assembly districts and, with it, three state senatorial districts. The more Democratic northern half of Green County, along with southern Dane, was slotted into a district to the north already held by a Democrat. The southeastern part of Green County was slotted into a district held by our former Democratic Assembly representative. Monroe and the southwestern part of Green County, arguably the most Republican part of the old district, was slotted into a district to the west already held by a Republican incumbent.
In addition, Monroe, the largest municipality of the new 51st Assembly District, is on the extreme southeastern fringe of that reconstituted district that reaches over to Lafayette County and snakes north to Iowa County and includes parts of Richland and Sauk Counties. Our new state senate district goes west to the Mississippi River, and snakes north nearly half way up the state to Juneau County.
These new districts make no economic or demographic sense. But the greater mischief is that it reduces the competitiveness of the legislative districts. The Wisconsin Republicans have increased the probability that they will remain in power for much of the next decade. Now if you are a Republican, you might think this is a good thing.
But, think again. Even if the Democrats would do the same thing if they were in power doesn't make it right. And besides, most citizens, including those who favor one party or the other, are not that gung-ho partisan. Most citizens simply want their state and congressional legislators to talk rationally to each other, work across party lines with the give-and-take that goes with legislating, and deal with the issues that need addressing. Stop the gridlock and get the job done.
Redistricting in such a way that reduces competitiveness reduces incentives of legislators to deal with the other party because they are likely to get elected anyway.
Can redistricting be reformed? Political scientists assert that Iowa has a superior system. A non-partisan commission recommends the districts, taking into account as much as practical, county, municipal and regional boundaries. The legislature still has to buy off, but at least the initial plan is neither Republican nor Democratic. Naturally, some districts may still be predominantly Republican or Democratic. But they were not gerrymandered with the intent of retaining power of one party or the other.
It is encouraging that there is a statewide effort on the part of public interest organizations to change Wisconsin's redistricting process. Editorials of Wisconsin's major newspapers have got on board, including those of Milwaukee, Green Bay, Chippewa Falls, Beloit, LaCrosse, Wisconsin Rapids, Oshkosh, Kenosha, and Appleton, home town of Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, no less.
The Janesville Gazette and Madison's Wisconsin State Journal are behind the effort. I often take issue with the worthies who edit these two regional papers, but one must applaud them when they are spot on regarding something as important as redistricting.
If redistricting is to be accomplished, it has to be near the beginning of the decade. This reduces the number of legislators who have a vested interest in retaining office a decade hence. And it reduces the predictability of who will be in power a decade hence.
This issue may seem abstract, but it has practical implications for the average citizen. We need to press our state legislators to get on with the task of redistricting reform.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Tmes. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
