It's not highest on the average voter's mind, but it will be here soon and, as usual, there will be a big legislative brouhaha over it. It is soon redistricting time.
What is "redistricting," and why is it important? Every legislative and congressional district should represent approximately the same number of people. Therefore, state legislative and congressional boundaries need to be periodically adjusted to account for shifts in population.
Specifically, Wisconsin's constitution requires the legislature to redraw boundaries after each census to reflect population changes. As the next census is in 2010, the redistricting process will begin in 2011.
So why is it so important? Let's quote a recent Associated Press piece (Monroe Times, January 23, 2009):
"The stakes are enormous. Lawmakers can create predominantly Democratic and Republican districts, allowing them to hold their areas for the next decade. They also can lose their jobs if their district merges with another one."
In other words, those already holding power have the power to maximize their likelihood of retaining power by selectively redrawing boundaries. This corrupts our democratic process in several ways. It stacks the system further in favor of incumbents who already hold formidable advantage. It increases the number of districts that lean heavily toward one party or the other, further diminishing the incentive to work across party lines, contributing to legislative gridlock. It diminishes incentive to appeal to a broader cross section of the electorate. And it too often results in illogical boundaries that split counties and municipalities.
We see the results of the current system in the relatively small number of legislative and congressional districts that are even reasonably competitive. Our system was not intended to yield lifetime careers for politicians who, once elected, amass huge war chests and are concerned chiefly about retaining power. But that is increasingly the result - career politicians who are short on real-life experiences, are out of touch with realities faced by everyday citizens, and who have little incentive to deliver due to advantages of incumbency.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently scrapped plans to prepare for forthcoming boundary disputes over legislative districts. Why did the state Supreme Court even consider this?
It's because, in Wisconsin, courts inevitably get involved. According to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, only once since the 1920s have Wisconsin lawmakers redrawn the lines without turning to state or federal courts to resolve redistricting disputes. And because the stakes are so enormous, and the process so contentious, we can expect the courts to be involved again.
Is there a better way? Students of redistricting cite Iowa as having a better system. A nonpartisan commission recommends districts based on criteria that make economic and demographic sense. For example, districts should not have snake-like configurations, and municipalities should not be split down the middle to ensure favorable boundaries for existing legislators.
Several "good-government" organizations in Wisconsin have spearheaded past efforts at redistricting reform. These include The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, League of Women Voters, and Common Cause. Senior legislators including Spencer Black and Fred Kessler have been prominent in this effort. More junior legislators such as Steve Hilgenberg have weighed in. UW-Madison Political Science Professor David Canon has been an academic force in this effort.
The interested citizen can learn more about this important reform effort through "A Citizen Guide to Redistricting," put out by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. It can be easily Googled.
Redistricting reform is a basic need for more effective government. Every legislator should have his or her feet held to the fire on this matter. After all, the system was designed for voters to select their representatives - rather than career politicians selecting their constituents, as is now the case.
- John Waelti is a native of Monroe Township, and now resides in Monroe. He is former Professor of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota; and Professor Emeritus, New Mexico State University. He can be reached at jjwaelti@charter.net.
What is "redistricting," and why is it important? Every legislative and congressional district should represent approximately the same number of people. Therefore, state legislative and congressional boundaries need to be periodically adjusted to account for shifts in population.
Specifically, Wisconsin's constitution requires the legislature to redraw boundaries after each census to reflect population changes. As the next census is in 2010, the redistricting process will begin in 2011.
So why is it so important? Let's quote a recent Associated Press piece (Monroe Times, January 23, 2009):
"The stakes are enormous. Lawmakers can create predominantly Democratic and Republican districts, allowing them to hold their areas for the next decade. They also can lose their jobs if their district merges with another one."
In other words, those already holding power have the power to maximize their likelihood of retaining power by selectively redrawing boundaries. This corrupts our democratic process in several ways. It stacks the system further in favor of incumbents who already hold formidable advantage. It increases the number of districts that lean heavily toward one party or the other, further diminishing the incentive to work across party lines, contributing to legislative gridlock. It diminishes incentive to appeal to a broader cross section of the electorate. And it too often results in illogical boundaries that split counties and municipalities.
We see the results of the current system in the relatively small number of legislative and congressional districts that are even reasonably competitive. Our system was not intended to yield lifetime careers for politicians who, once elected, amass huge war chests and are concerned chiefly about retaining power. But that is increasingly the result - career politicians who are short on real-life experiences, are out of touch with realities faced by everyday citizens, and who have little incentive to deliver due to advantages of incumbency.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently scrapped plans to prepare for forthcoming boundary disputes over legislative districts. Why did the state Supreme Court even consider this?
It's because, in Wisconsin, courts inevitably get involved. According to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, only once since the 1920s have Wisconsin lawmakers redrawn the lines without turning to state or federal courts to resolve redistricting disputes. And because the stakes are so enormous, and the process so contentious, we can expect the courts to be involved again.
Is there a better way? Students of redistricting cite Iowa as having a better system. A nonpartisan commission recommends districts based on criteria that make economic and demographic sense. For example, districts should not have snake-like configurations, and municipalities should not be split down the middle to ensure favorable boundaries for existing legislators.
Several "good-government" organizations in Wisconsin have spearheaded past efforts at redistricting reform. These include The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, League of Women Voters, and Common Cause. Senior legislators including Spencer Black and Fred Kessler have been prominent in this effort. More junior legislators such as Steve Hilgenberg have weighed in. UW-Madison Political Science Professor David Canon has been an academic force in this effort.
The interested citizen can learn more about this important reform effort through "A Citizen Guide to Redistricting," put out by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. It can be easily Googled.
Redistricting reform is a basic need for more effective government. Every legislator should have his or her feet held to the fire on this matter. After all, the system was designed for voters to select their representatives - rather than career politicians selecting their constituents, as is now the case.
- John Waelti is a native of Monroe Township, and now resides in Monroe. He is former Professor of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota; and Professor Emeritus, New Mexico State University. He can be reached at jjwaelti@charter.net.
