Back in June, when I first put up my 21/51 page, I explained the implications of it in this post. In the aftermath of Tuesday’s elections, the editorial boards of The Virginian Pilot and The Washington Post each weighed in in favor of removing the drawing of the lines from the party in charge and turning it over to a nonpartisan or bipartisan commission. Last session, with the Republicans in control of both houses, Senator Creigh Deeds introduced a redistricting bill in the Senate and Del. Brian Moran introduced similar legislation in the House. Deeds’ bill actually passed in the Senate but was DOA in the House, while Moran’s bill went nowhere.
Redistricting is about giving the voters choices. In Friday’s taping of OTR, we had the opportunity to talk about redistricting a bit, both before the taping and during. I don’t recall whether all of what was said made it to the show but something retiring Del. Leo Wardrup said has stuck with me these last few days: the differences between the objectives of House and Senate members in the 2001 redistricting. Wardrup, who was there, said that the Senate portion of the plan looked out for individuals, regardless of party, while the House portion looked out for party. Note that the voters are no where to be found in either plan.
The promise of nonpartisan – or, at least, bipartisan – redistricting if the Democrats took control of one or both houses was the whole idea behind 21/51. So I was appalled – and outraged – when I read that the likely majority leader, Richard Saslaw, dismissed the idea, saying, “A lot of us will probably lose interest in that.” Waldo saw this coming and starting tracking the positions of the Democrats on this issue.
If the Democrats abandon the idea of nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting, then they will have proven that the only thing that matters is power. Not the best interests of the Commonwealth, not the best interests of the people – just power. We’ve already seen that happen at the national level. Just look at how much the Democratically controlled Congress has “accomplished.”
I’ll be changing my header back to the old one soon – back to the “We the People” one that I had up for so long. Because to me, that is what matters. Looking out for the people is what our elected representatives should be doing, not looking out for themselves.
I urge Sen. Deeds and Del. Moran, both likely candidates for the governor’s office in 2009, to re-introduce their bills and demonstrate that they can lead the Commonwealth down the path of what is right for the people.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Lani Guinier cited approvingly by a resident winger.
Will wonders never cease?
The issue of redistricting is neither R nor D. It’s about the people. After being a part of the study done by the LWV last year, I’m more convinced than ever that it is the right thing to do. It’s not a silver bullet by any means, but it gets us closer to where we need to go.
We need to keep pushing our elected representatives on this. It’s just too important an issue.
AEM – take that up with your Congresscritter. Let’s not get off track – we’re talking about redistricting here.
vivian, agreed. It would be very disappointing if the d’s dropped the issue. Hope that john Miller doenst disappoint like that after working for him
John is on board with us – see this
OK — let’s take changing federal law off the table for now.
We will have Census data giving populations of every existing voting district, and the boundaries of those districts. It should not be that difficult to develop a computer program to create 11 congressional districts with equal population (within a certain margin) with the minimum total perimeter. This will create compact, non-partisan districts.
Well, in the interest of fairness to the electorate in any given census track, it ought to be pointed out that gerrymandering doesn’t only involve race or voting patterns. Drawing differing regional types into a single district is just as much a problem as concentrating or diffusing black voters. Putting urban and metropolitan interests in the same district as competing rural socioeconomic interests often leads rural voters to lose their representation when their Member has to decide between their votes or the votes in a denser, voter-rich urban center. And that’s often how districts get drawn when those are the only guidelines you use; the majority of districts suddenly turn into microcosms of Virginia statewide, where the rural voters are overbalanced by urban voters.
It’s good for me because I’m a Democrat, and the suburban/exurban voters on the fringe between metropolitan and urban interests are breaking my way right now. But I have enough rural folk in my family that I find that sort of redistricting a little bit distasteful.
I really don’t think that would be a major problem, just from the mathematics of the optimization.
I just got back from a few days away and saw this. I’m with you on this Vivian. We need non-partisan redistricting that makes geographic sense and empowers people not politicians.
Woman, you have the wrong attitude. The people DO have the power. We have empowered the politicians by our laziness and ignorance, which allows them to get away with the things they do.
AEM – TJ said it best:
I entirely agree.
The dilemma, of course, is that we have the POLITICIANS “educating” the children. If the children are kept uneducated, the politicians keep the power.
Is it any wonder that our public education system is so horrible?