From the Metro West Daily News

Wilmot: High court puts redistricting reform in voters' hands
By Pamela Wilmot/ Guest Columnist
Saturday, July 8, 2006

For the second time this week, the US Supreme Court yesterday made
American democracy less secure. In the Texas redistricting case, the
nation's highest court left one of the most heavy-handed power grabs
in history largely untouched, saying that it could not find a
constitutional standards with which to strike it down.
The facts were not disputed. In 2003, Democratic legislators twice
fled the state to block a redistricting plan that handed half a dozen
Democratic congressional seats to Republicans. Texas had already
completed its redistricting process in 2001. But Republican leaders,
spurred by the since-indicted Tom DeLay, took another bite at the
apple to drastically reduce Democratic Party representation by drawing
snake-like districts that effectively "packed" and "cracked"
Democratic voters.
"Gerrymandering," or drawing district lines for electoral gains,
isn't unique to Texas. In fact, the term "gerrymander" was coined
right here in Massachusetts in 1812 when Governor Elbridge Gerry
endorsed an electoral district said to look like a salamander.
Legislative redistricting is an almost purely political exercise
across the nation because it is conducted, in most states, by those
who have the most to gain or lose in the political process-legislative
incumbents. District lines are drawn to reward friends, punish enemies
and, most of all, to protect those in power. Challengers are brazenly
excised from districts and communities fractured in the process.
Gerrymanders can either be partisan or bipartisan in nature,
protecting incumbents from one party or both.
Today's efficient computer programs allow lawmakers to slice and
dice districts at the touch of a button. The result is upside-down
elections: instead of voters choosing their representatives, the
politicians choose which voters they want to face.
This has led to a disturbing trend toward no political
competition. In state houses across the nation and in the federal
House of Representatives, incumbents are seeing fewer challenges,
close elections are increasingly rare, and moderates with cross-party
appeal are giving way to partisan extremists in safe districts. Here
in Massachusetts, competition in legislative races has hovered at the
35 percent range, placing us next to last in the nation for electoral
competitiveness.
In Texas, the Tom DeLay gerrymandering had the desired effect -
six congressional seats formerly held by Democrats were taken over by
Republicans, and only one seat was considered "competitive."
Amazingly, it's all legal, as the court reaffirmed last week. But
there is a solution to the problem.
Pioneered by Iowa, Arizona, and nine other states, voters entrust
redistricting to an independent, nonpartisan commission, with
stringent map-making guidelines that prevent political favoritism.
States with independent redistricting commissions have significantly
more political competition and fewer gerrymandered districts. For
example, Iowa with just five congressional seats has more electoral
competition than Illinois, New York, and California combined.
Fifty-eight legislators, Common Cause Massachusetts, and a
coalition of civil rights and good government groups filed legislation
to create such a commission, Senate Bill 12, which is up for a vote at
the Constitutional Convention scheduled for July 12. The commission it
would create, unlike the Legislature, would be required to conduct all
of its work in public view, would solicit extensive public input, and
would be guided by a strict set of principles that would limit its
discretion.
An initiative petition based on the legislation obtained 60,000
signatures last fall, just shy of the 66,000 required to reduce the
number of votes required in the Convention from 101 to 50. The
petition was endorsed by a whose-who of political leaders from both
parties including former Governor Mike Dukakis, Governor Romney, Lt.
Governor Healey, Attorney General Thomas Reilly, former Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger, and gubernatorial hopefuls Deval Patrick
and Christy Mihos who understand that the current redistricting
process is irreparably broken.
While it is unclear whether the Legislature will get past the
issue of same-sex marriage next week to reach the Fair Districts
proposal and the other important amendments on the Constitutional
Convention docket, it should enact this commonsense reform before the
next census. Redistricting reform is overdue. Truly fair redistricting
and competitive elections won't happen as long as incumbents have the
power to shape districts to their advantage.
Pamela Wilmot is executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.