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 
Amen!
I was not as much opposed to political gerrymandering, it s when it took all sense of geography out of the equation that did it for me.
Hampton split into 3 congressional districts. The 1st spanning from NN/Hampton to Prince William.
The 3rd CD from Norfolk to Richmond.
Throwing Mathews County into the 6th SD seems like a what the heck kind of effort.
I hope it happens and how much fun it will b to have a whole host of competitive elections instead of one oer here and one over there.
BTW…Good job on OTR
Having drawn up 2 of Virginia Beach’s 7 redistricting plans last time, think I could get appointed to the bipartisan commission? 🙂
“A lot of us will probably lose interest in that.”
Yeah. No-one saw that coming, huh?
I doubt Deeds and Moran will re-introduce their bills.
The congressional districs should be eliminated, and all congressmen elected at-large.
Vivian, I admire your commitment to principle on this issue. Good for you. Redistricting should be implemented on a non-partisan basis, guided by the principle that senators and delegates should represent geographic communities of interest — not the interest of the politicians. Of course, that will never happen. The party in power, whether its name begins with a D or an R, will always seize whatever short-term political advantage it can.
I think maybe this would be an excellent issue on which to test our abilities to facilitate public pressure.
Good topic Vivian. It’s obvious from the 1st CD that streches from the City of Hampton to Faquier county that voters on both ends of the district are ill served by the result of gerrymandering.
Voters in the suburban communites between Dale City and Bolling Green and folks in Hampton and Newport News are not even close to being “geographic communities of interest.”
When the next redistricting is done I do hope it is about “giving the voters choices” and not about building 60/40 safe seats and uncontested elections.
“The congressional districs should be eliminated, and all congressmen elected at-large.”
Are you high?
It can’t be done: Federal law requires single-member Congressional districts.
That is certainly not in the Constitution. What law is it?
State law 24.2-302.1
If the Democrats abandon the idea of nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting, then they will have proven that the only thing that matters is power.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?
Found it! Federal Law requires single-member Congressional districts.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1724
That’s NOT what I was looking for, but it lead me to the right place, thank you: 2 USC Sec. 2c.
The law was meant to remedy the problem of having states with a majority party elect all of their representatives at large, so that party wins all the elections. Districts do not change that problem if there is a uniform distribution. Massachusetts, for instance, has 10 Democratic congressmen and NO Republicans. Are 95% of the people in Massachusetts Democrats? In Virginia, we have only three of eleven congressmen who are Democrats. Is only 30% of the state Democratic?
The solution, as proposed by one of Clinton’s unconfirmed nominees, is to have at-large elections, and as many votes as seats in congress. Thus, the Libertarians could all cast their 11 votes for one person, and if they total more than 9% of the vote, he is a congressman.
Furthermore, her solution avoids the problem of non-representation. For instance, could a Democrat really write to his Republican congressman and expect that congressman to push a Democratic bill that voter wants? He could write to another congressman, another Democrat, but why should he listen to a voter who is not even in his district?
When all are elected at-large with proportional voting, a voter will have SEVERAL congressmen of his party to whom he could write. (Obviously, this does not change things in single-district states, but neither did districting.)
Federal laws can be changed, too.