It will soon be here again, the decennial process of redrawing congressional and state legislative boundaries. This crucially important process has for too long been ignored by our politicians who see no incentive for reform. Too few citizens understand the process and its importance in a functioning democracy.
Readers may recall two recent guest editorials in the Monroe Times, from the Racine Journal Times and from the Chicago Tribune, both emphasizing need for reform of the redistricting process. Along with editorials throughout the nation, and calls by government watchdog organizations, these editorials correctly nail the reasons why redistricting reform is long overdue.
Let's review some basics and some close-to-home implications of the flawed existing system.
Every state determines the size of its own legislature. A general criterion is that within each state, each house and senate district contains approximately the same number of voters. As population patterns change, boundaries of districts are readjusted every 10 years, based on the recent census. So far, so good. But the problem is with who redraws the boundaries, and the criteria used.
The party controlling each state legislature draws district boundaries, essentially turning the democratic process on its head - majority party politicians select their constituents rather than voters selecting their legislators. It's called "gerrymandering." This results in many safe, non-competitive districts, favoring the party in power to remain in power. This increases partisanship, diminishing incentive of legislators to work "across the aisle."
For example, in 2010, Republicans gained control of the Wisconsin legislature and redrew legislative district lines to favor of Republicans. In the 2012 election, Democrats won 53 percent of the 2.7 million votes cast for State Assembly races compared to 46 percent cast by Republicans. Nevertheless, Republicans won 60 of the 99 seats.
One party, with less than half of the votes, won two-thirds of the seats.
How could this possibly happen? Easy - with good data on individual voting patterns and aid of computer technology, lines can easily be drawn to favor the party in power. This technique is based on "packing," where Democrats are packed into as few districts as possible and Republicans spread over a large number of districts where they have an advantage. This results in many "wasted" votes by Democrats. In contrast, Republican votes are spread "efficiently" over a large area, resulting in few "wasted" votes and a large number of victorious districts.
Granted, as Wisconsin Democrats are somewhat concentrated in Madison and Milwaukee, even lines drawn on a non-partisan basis would still likely favor a Republican Assembly majority. However, it would not be nearly a two-thirds/one-third ratio. And importantly, there would be more competitive seats.
Prior to 2010 redistricting, Green County was entirely in the old 80th Assembly district. Monroe, the district's largest municipality, was the geographic and demographic center of the district. That made sense.
With Republican-engineered 2010 redistricting, Green County was carved into three separate Assembly and three state Senate districts. Instead of dealing with one state Assemblyman and one state Senator, our county officials and department heads now have to deal with three state Assemblymen and three state Senators, neither of whom have Green County as their main entity. This is not to disparage our worthy six legislators, as each makes their periodic appearances. But Green County and Monroe are now at a legislative disadvantage.
Once the geographic and demographic center of the old 80th Assembly district, Monroe is now at the extreme southeastern fringe of the new 51st Assembly district, and the southeastern fringe of the new 17th State Senate district that runs over to the Mississippi River and 115 miles north to the edge of Juneau County. This "makes sense" only if the goal of the party in power is to remain in power.
The more Democratic northern part of Green County has been split off, joining a district including suburban Madison that was already Democratic - a result of aforementioned "packing."
State legislatures also have the power and responsibility to redraw U.S. Congressional district lines every 10 years. (The exception is for sparsely populated states such as Montana, with only one congressman, the district comprising the entire state.)
During the 2010 election, Republicans gained power throughout the nation, resulting in their power to draw congressional district lines. The packing process results in some safe Democratic seats, but a larger number of safe Republican seats, and fewer competitive seats. This is why talk of a Democratic takeover of the U.S. House in 2018 is premature. While there are some congressional districts in which a Republican won the congressional vote while Hillary Clinton won the presidential vote, these districts are so few that it will be a very uphill battle for Democrats to win a House majority.
As with state legislatures, safe congressional seats of either party reduce the incentive of politicians to work "across the aisle." Individual legislators in safe districts have greater fear of a primary challenge than from an opponent of the other party.
In North Carolina, 30 percent of voters are Republican but they hold 10 of its 13 congressional seats. A North Carolina GOP lawmaker was quoted as saying the goal was 10 Republican seats only "because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."
Solutions are possible. Iowa is ahead of us cheese heads, with a non-partisan commission making the recommendations for redistricting.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of gerrymandering where it was used to minimize power of black voters. But it has been reluctant to take up the issue of purely partisan gerrymandering.
That may change with the pending case for which the court has agreed to consider the Wisconsin Assembly map.
This is not to suggest that Democrats are pure as the driven snow, as either party, once in power, has the incentive to remain in power.
It's in the interest of all citizens to reform the process.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
Readers may recall two recent guest editorials in the Monroe Times, from the Racine Journal Times and from the Chicago Tribune, both emphasizing need for reform of the redistricting process. Along with editorials throughout the nation, and calls by government watchdog organizations, these editorials correctly nail the reasons why redistricting reform is long overdue.
Let's review some basics and some close-to-home implications of the flawed existing system.
Every state determines the size of its own legislature. A general criterion is that within each state, each house and senate district contains approximately the same number of voters. As population patterns change, boundaries of districts are readjusted every 10 years, based on the recent census. So far, so good. But the problem is with who redraws the boundaries, and the criteria used.
The party controlling each state legislature draws district boundaries, essentially turning the democratic process on its head - majority party politicians select their constituents rather than voters selecting their legislators. It's called "gerrymandering." This results in many safe, non-competitive districts, favoring the party in power to remain in power. This increases partisanship, diminishing incentive of legislators to work "across the aisle."
For example, in 2010, Republicans gained control of the Wisconsin legislature and redrew legislative district lines to favor of Republicans. In the 2012 election, Democrats won 53 percent of the 2.7 million votes cast for State Assembly races compared to 46 percent cast by Republicans. Nevertheless, Republicans won 60 of the 99 seats.
One party, with less than half of the votes, won two-thirds of the seats.
How could this possibly happen? Easy - with good data on individual voting patterns and aid of computer technology, lines can easily be drawn to favor the party in power. This technique is based on "packing," where Democrats are packed into as few districts as possible and Republicans spread over a large number of districts where they have an advantage. This results in many "wasted" votes by Democrats. In contrast, Republican votes are spread "efficiently" over a large area, resulting in few "wasted" votes and a large number of victorious districts.
Granted, as Wisconsin Democrats are somewhat concentrated in Madison and Milwaukee, even lines drawn on a non-partisan basis would still likely favor a Republican Assembly majority. However, it would not be nearly a two-thirds/one-third ratio. And importantly, there would be more competitive seats.
Prior to 2010 redistricting, Green County was entirely in the old 80th Assembly district. Monroe, the district's largest municipality, was the geographic and demographic center of the district. That made sense.
With Republican-engineered 2010 redistricting, Green County was carved into three separate Assembly and three state Senate districts. Instead of dealing with one state Assemblyman and one state Senator, our county officials and department heads now have to deal with three state Assemblymen and three state Senators, neither of whom have Green County as their main entity. This is not to disparage our worthy six legislators, as each makes their periodic appearances. But Green County and Monroe are now at a legislative disadvantage.
Once the geographic and demographic center of the old 80th Assembly district, Monroe is now at the extreme southeastern fringe of the new 51st Assembly district, and the southeastern fringe of the new 17th State Senate district that runs over to the Mississippi River and 115 miles north to the edge of Juneau County. This "makes sense" only if the goal of the party in power is to remain in power.
The more Democratic northern part of Green County has been split off, joining a district including suburban Madison that was already Democratic - a result of aforementioned "packing."
State legislatures also have the power and responsibility to redraw U.S. Congressional district lines every 10 years. (The exception is for sparsely populated states such as Montana, with only one congressman, the district comprising the entire state.)
During the 2010 election, Republicans gained power throughout the nation, resulting in their power to draw congressional district lines. The packing process results in some safe Democratic seats, but a larger number of safe Republican seats, and fewer competitive seats. This is why talk of a Democratic takeover of the U.S. House in 2018 is premature. While there are some congressional districts in which a Republican won the congressional vote while Hillary Clinton won the presidential vote, these districts are so few that it will be a very uphill battle for Democrats to win a House majority.
As with state legislatures, safe congressional seats of either party reduce the incentive of politicians to work "across the aisle." Individual legislators in safe districts have greater fear of a primary challenge than from an opponent of the other party.
In North Carolina, 30 percent of voters are Republican but they hold 10 of its 13 congressional seats. A North Carolina GOP lawmaker was quoted as saying the goal was 10 Republican seats only "because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."
Solutions are possible. Iowa is ahead of us cheese heads, with a non-partisan commission making the recommendations for redistricting.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of gerrymandering where it was used to minimize power of black voters. But it has been reluctant to take up the issue of purely partisan gerrymandering.
That may change with the pending case for which the court has agreed to consider the Wisconsin Assembly map.
This is not to suggest that Democrats are pure as the driven snow, as either party, once in power, has the incentive to remain in power.
It's in the interest of all citizens to reform the process.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
