One of my legislative agenda items for this past General Assembly session was redistricting. Having split control between Democrats and Republicans seemed to be the perfect situation for the passage of some form of bipartisan redistricting. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. And if it didn’t pass in 2008, I don’t hold out much hope for the 2009 session, with the same cast of characters.
In this presidential election year, I think the one thing that is missed is that no president can advance his agenda without a supporting cast in Congress. Yet little attention gets paid to the process by which the lines are drawn for Congressional representation. As I talked to people “all fired up and ready to go” to elect a Democratic president, I ask about this and, for the most part, I get blank stares in return.
It comes as no surprise to me, then, that the DLC has issued a report in which they find that partisan gerrymandering of districts results in less competitive elections and lower voter turnout. In the report (pdf), it is estimated that voter turnout in Virginia would increase 43% if Congressional districts were more competitive.
There will be a census in 2010, the results of which will be used by the General Assembly to draw the district lines in 2011. Who we elect in 2009 – both as members of the General Assembly and as governor – will be drawing those lines, lines that we will have to live with for ten years. While I’m not ignoring the Congressional races for 2008, my thoughts and actions have already shifted towards 2009. I can only hope that the energy from the 2008 presidential campaign carries over.
All politics is local.
h/t fred2Blue
UPDATE: FYI – The Platform of the Democratic Party of Virginia, as adopted by the Party at the convention, now includes support for bipartisan redistricting:
We support legislative redistricting that is fair to all citizens, that follows logical geographical and jurisdictional boundaries, and that strives to keep communities of interest intact. We support the creation of an independent, bipartisan commission for the redistricting of legislative boundaries.
Now we just have to hold our electeds to it.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Competition: good for the free markets, less good for Republican members of the House of Delegates? Sigh.
Silence Dogood,
Competition for votes need not be disastrous for Republicans. However it will help ensure that Republican (and Democratic) candidates are receptive to the will of the people.
Occasionally the “will of the people” results in bad leadership (cut my taxes but increase my benefits so I’ll vote for you) but I think there are enough of us moderates around to to swing the vote towards the realistic candidate.
As proof of my contention is that Virginia Democrats are realizing success through often nominating moderate to conservative candidates for office. They are not achieving success through insisting every candidate must be a left wing extremist. Perhaps the Republican Party can learn a lesson from the Democrats and start nominating candidates that are not such ideologically pure Republicans for office.
I would relish competitive races for every office every time.
Be careful what you wish for, VJP: if history is any guide (and the polls hold up), you’re likely to see that “energy” for Republicans in ’09.
As for the merits of the proposal, I suppose it might be taken a little more seriously if it weren’t mainly coming from Democrats after ten years in the wilderness, preceded by more than a century of dominance in the Commonwealth. And I don’t see increased voter turnout as a particularly compelling justification. After all, Weimar Germany had extremely high turnout in 1932, with genuinely competitive elections. It is likely that few reading this would commend those results as a positive effect of increased voter participation.
Why am I not surprised by the tactic taken by James Young?
Higher voter turnout = Nazi Germany.
Seriously James? Seriously? Perhaps this explains why Republicans in the General Assembly constantly defeat bills in subcommittees and on the floor making it easier for citizens in this Commonwealth to vote. Because if there are more people voting, well, then obviously genocide will take place in America.
James, I would hope that you would instead have faith in your fellow man to elect the best man or woman to the job.
I don’t see where I referred to the “energy” as being Republican or Democratic, James.
The system that we employ to draw the districts is broken – I think I’ve been quite clear in saying that over and over. Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially when it is the voters that lose.
Exactly Vivian,
If we elect more Democrats it is not right for the Democrats to now gerrymander any more then it was right for the Republicans to do it.
I think I support your efforts.
Vivian,
Your post seems to infer that Obama supporters (I take that from the reference about people being “all fired up and ready to go”) are either ignorant of, or disinterested in, redistricting reform. On what basis other than your own casual questioning can you possibly make this claim?
I could argue just as strongly and convincing based on my own feelings and those I’ve talked to that it is not the case. Firstly, perhaps lots of excited grassroots Democrats working for Obama aren’t as concerned about Congress as we already control both chambers at the federal level, and they are much more interested in ensuring that we capture the third rail, the Presidency. Particularly as we do seem poised to gain at least 4-6 Senate seats and maybe another one or two dozen House seats.
But even more relevant to the idea of redistricting, there is not much that can be done (unless we were in Texas and had Democratic control) until we’re ready to actually redraw the lines in 2011 except to elect more Democratic representatives at the state level all over the country–part of your point. Only then will we have a chance of protecting some sense of fairness in the redistricting process (and before someone says it because I know they will–this does not mean drawing for Democratic advantage rather just not having Republicans exploiting their majorities for electoral stacking as was done far more prevalently in 2000-2002 than any previous time in American history).
Also, interestingly, for those of us who favor passing non-partisan redistricting reform laws that would establish academic commissions and non-partisan boards working based on demographic and community-identity perceptions to oversee the line-drawing process, the only people who are going to work to establish such processes are Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans don’t want that now because they know that they’ve got way too much to lose.
But to infer that electing Obama now, or not, won’t make a differnence in both national and state and local politics is pretty foolish. Forgive me if I read too much into what you’re saying, but I detect a little resignation about this year’s federal contests, as though you don’t think a monumental opportunity to move forward a truly progressive agenda exists at the moment?
So, while I completely agree with what you are saying–that 2009 is very important for us particularly in Virginia in who controls the redistricting processes, trying to say that energy and focus on 2008 isn’t going to help us now and sooner than redistricting reform will, is also unproductive, and I think possibly a subtle way of saying that you aren’t going to invest much time and energy in 2008.
Big mistake, in my opinion. 2008 will matter for generations to come, based on the Supreme Court alone. I don’t need to recite the laundry list of other areas where there is REAL opportunity for progressive issues in the next Presidential term, one that will assuredly be accompanied by significant Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.
Let’s not make that mistake, please.
In other shorter words, Carpe Diem! Sieze the moment, or it will be gone.
And if there’s anything I know about politics, it’s that they’re always changing, and we won’t be enjoying this environmental favorability forever.
It’s time NOW in 2008 to elect Obama and more Democratic Senators and Representatives so that we can and we WILL accomplish a progressive agenda.
2009 will be important here in VA too, but looking past 2008 is a huge mistake.
DiMV – you certainly wrote a whole lot based on inferring something that I didn’t write. I know you’re not a frequent visitor here – perhaps you should be as you would understand that redistricting is one of my passions. And you would also understand that from where I sit, the closer government is to me, the more important it is to me.
To say that there is nothing than can be done until 2011 is short-sighted, in my humble opinion. The time to talk about redistricting is not when it is upon us, but now.
And for you to say I’m not going to invest energy in 2008 is to deliberately misread what I wrote.
Oh – and if the Ds are in charge of Congress, doesn’t that nullify the whole Supreme Court argument, anyway?
Little David – I just updated the post to reflect the DPVA’s position. I think we are in agreement here 😉
What!? Wow, I didn’t expect that.
OK, first, of course I understand that redistricting is one of your passions. I visit here about 3-4 times a month and I do know that. I wasn’t disputing its importance OR disagreeing with what you wrote in your post. I was in fact agreeing with it–that it is needed and that 2009 is important in VA because of it.
I did NOT write that nothing can be done—I said that not much can be done (in VA) because only Democrats will vote for reform, and that they only thing we CAN do is elect more Democrats in the House (again, AGREEING with your post).
Where I do DARE to infer (your words make it fairly clear) on 2008 is that you stated in the very title of your post that you are “looking to 2009”. Am I so out of line to ask you not to forget about the importance of 2008, which is all that I did? To be completely honest, I also felt your reference to “fired up and ready to go” was a little slap at Obama supporters as though they are not aware or concerned with redistricting reform and I can assure you that is not the case. My own delegate, Kris Amundson, an Obama supporter herself, has championed redistricting reform legislation of a moderate variety in the House, as I’m sure you’re aware.
And in answer to your last question, NO. D’s in control of Congress does NOT nullify the Supreme Court argument. Of course not and I’m sure you know it.
I’m sorry, but my comments were not an attack on you, just some observations that agree with you, and a request to not overlook 2008 if that was on the plate. Glad to hear that’s not the case.
Doug – I don’t write on this blog for electeds like Kris Amundson. Of course they understand the issue. But when I talk to folks around here, particularly the federal voters (and we know there are a whole lot of them in VA – Kaine targeted them in his 2005 gubernatorial run), they are completely unaware of the process.
The “fired up and ready to go” is a dig at those federal voters, not Obama supporters, because I see far too many of them down here who pay absolutely no attention to politics otherwise. I’m trying to get them to see a bigger picture, which is why I mentioned giving the president a supporting cast. I’ve talked to way too many folks who don’t know who their Congress critter is and don’t know where to go or who to contact to help on a campaign like that.
You’re right – I am looking to 2009. I want those same folks who are so vested in seeing a Democratic president to get vested in what’s going on in Virginia. And I’ll keep saying that until I’m blue in the face.
All politics is local.
As for the Supreme Court – we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Funny how Democrats were against redistricting in California and for it in Ohio in the same year! The art of line drawing is a lost art. A very important art, now making it bi-partisan or non-partisan is the real difficulty. Computers make some very amusing districts with neighbors split between districts. I thought the governator had it right, having an appointed group of people draw the lines and submit them for approval. Take California for example…lines are drawn so that the effect is they get the same representation year after year…that would discourage participation. Texas had that Tom Delay stuff happen with redistricting. The lines did need to be redrawn. The accepted lines from the 2000 Census weren’t really drawn as required by the Texas House, they turned that task over to some courts or judges to do. Getting a consensus with a split legislature was the problem.
Hey, I’m with you for better lines. Anything where the competition gets the job, not the guy who wins the nomination. People competing for the vote is more beneficial than safe districts favoring one party or the other.
Doug up there seems to like Tom Delay’s method. that very shortsighted.
Unfortunately any redistricting legislation will have to wait until at least 2009. One can hardly expect a redrawing of the lines from a president who cannot effectively color inside them.
How on Earth is being in favor of NON-partisan and community-identity based redistricting favoring “Tom Delay’s method” of redistricting? You folks need to read a little more carefully! You are INCORRECTLY ascribing views to me that I neither stated nor implied, and you know better. The reference to Texas was done in SARCASM because redistricting is an every-ten-year process only, with the exception of in Texas in 2003–I was berating that tactic, not endorsing it. Come on, people.
Here’s an excellent column by EJ Dionne on why the Supreme Court issue is NOT nullified by Democratic control (how timely!):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063001900.html?hpid=opinionsbox1