Redstate

And that being the case, wont the current court rule towards the states?

The four Justices who voted to keep the courts out of political gerrymandering cases altogether are the ones you would describe being in a states' rights camp.  Once Alito is confirmed, that bloc will still have no more than four members.  

is really momentous news, news that I'm not sure everyone (including myself) sees the implications of beyond DeLay. I'll be watching intently when they take the case up. Thanks for your attention to it.

In 2006 the Supreme Court is going to announce that whatever Mr. Justice Kennedy and his clerks come up with between now and then is the supreme law of the land on legislative redistricting, ending 300 years of elected officials being in charge of drawing districts in America.

To this, I would only say that elected officials have done a pretty rotten job of it, at least since I've been paying close attention and from what I've heard, a good deal before then. I don't know whether what you've written is true. But I'm just about to the point where I'd take anyone's idea on how redistricting should be done over the ideas of your time-honored elected officials, just to shake the durn thing up. Your main complaint seems to be that it's going to be decided by a man who is not democratically elected. Hey, well...when "democracy" looks like it does in America today, I'll take what I can get to change it.

(caveat: quickly and emotionally written)

I'm also not sure the vote is going to be all that
close. Wapo recently reported on a supressed Justice Department memo unanimously
endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section
that claims that the redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act.



Wapo goes on and says:

"The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos, while not binding, historically carry great weight within the Justice Department."



To me, the larger question is the Voting Rights Act, which is clearly a legislative issue.

The issue is typically couched around makeup of minorities within districts. Whereas we typically hear about the need to increase diversity from the left, in this case if you split up cities among different districts to make them more diverse the left complains that you've diluted the impact of minorities in each one. They seem to prefer an approach that sure looks to me like segregation where you pack a few districts with as many minorities as possible, which means most districts are overwhelmingly white. (Of course in Texas most districts in south Texas will be mostly Hispanic.)

There is also a lot of moaning about "splitting up cities". I live in the Austin suburbs but within Travis County, so I was always guaranteed to have whatever liberal Democrat (e.g. Lloyd Doggett) the Austin voters elected. After the redistricting, we were split out and now my Representative is from the Houston area. He might live 3 hours away rather than 30 minutes away, but he much more represents the values in our area so this is a big improvement. Splitting up cities (really counties) isn't necessarily an evil thing.

That gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear whether the recent redistricting disadvantaged Hispanics.  

As to whether they should impose any standards on gerrrymandering that disadvantages a particular political party, I suspect they will punt, even though some sort of Congressional action is sorely needed.  If the Supreme Court feels that the games the political parties are playing with the voting system is too far out of whack, they might gingerly decide to wade in, but I suppose it is unlikely.

I would note that the Federal courts have started to approve the imposition of cumulative voting and ranked-choice voting systems to bypass racial gerrymandering, a trend that the Supreme Court has noted with approval and there seems to be growing interest is such alternative voting systems generally.

I am worried that both parties have rigged the current winner-take-all system to lock up Congressional districts, resulting in so few real challenges in Congressional elections, marginalization of moderates, unnecessary polarity and unnecessary pork.  Alternative voting systems can avoid absurd racial gerrymandering (and disenfrachisement) and incentivize candidates and campaigns toward coalition-building and civility.  

It is the role of Congress to reform gerrymandering practices; though who don't want the Supreme Court involved should insist that Congress Act.

Excellent post. I never knew the specific derivation of the word "gerrymander": now I do.

that's how the NY Times hailed Kennedy in a front page headline after, I think, after the Roper decision.  Who can resist?  The only time Scalia makes it to the front page is when he goes duck hunting with Cheney.  It was gratifying though to see the Times believed you could have an apostle of anything.    The term usually used is "political thicket" for cases some judges used to think the Court should avoid,but just what would the court avoid today?  The Texas/Delay case is interesting particularlly in light of the "secret" DOJ memo,which like most secrets found it's way to the Times.  The combined Congresional vote in Texas was heavily in favor of Republicans prior to the changing of lines so Kennedy, who's very interested in numbers, see Roper v Simmons, should be impressed.  But that was yesterday judicially speaking.    The DOJ cabal that woke up to a perceived injustice 193 years after the fact should have ben impressed also.  Gerrymandering, for now I'll go with Nietzsche, "Even a bad tradition is better than no tradition at all".

issues on appeal, one of which involves the Voting Rights Act, yes.

A sort of funny bit in the AP dispatch which is the first link in the entry. It ends with this:

The map was used in 2004 elections, and Texas elected one additional black congressman besides the six additional Republican members. Of the 32 seats, six delegation members are Hispanic and three are black. Minority and Democratic groups argue that the map reduced by two the number of districts considered "safe" for minority candidates.

This is a reporter's take, but I thought that was kind of funny.  Democrats are portrayed here not as wanting an end to gerrymandered districts but rather wanting gerrymandered districts that guarantee minority candidates more "safe" seats.  Ain't it the truth.

but I'd imagine that your situation and your view on what happened to Travis County is not the majority view there in Austin. Certainly, the practice is more objectionable when the city could support a full congressional district itself (like Democratic Columbus, OH, currently split between 3 Republicans). When that's the case, there are fewer folks like yourself who have to be lumped in with the big liberal city. Still, the case in Austin is that it was intentionally divided in several parts to (a) stick it to liberal Democrats there who have been a thorn in Texas Republicans' side, and (b) drive Lloyd Doggett out of office. Only half of it worked, but it's 100% unacceptable.

The democrats with their congenital and pathological shortsightedness, neglect this thing called the future, which like the past, is consinged to a black hole of the mind. Bad as it is that the Court may become an arbiter of redistricting still their mop may swing both ways with unwelcome results for today's giddy liberals.  Kennedy's law clerks may interrupt his preening and posing in front of the mirror long enough for him to think about it.  Dreadful as it may be he may have to postpone the anticipated Periclean encomiums,{ How can Athens compare to Kennedy} until the next outrageous decision.

that Democrats who are pushing forward with this don't really care about the welfare of Sheila Jackson Lee and Solomon Ortiz and their poor underrepresented minority constituents. As that article notes, minority representation in Texas is doing just fine. Dems are furious about losing 5 reps (wouldn't you be?) and they'll take any avenue they can to get the map invalidated.

I can't believe that would be the end result of this, though...

Cumulative and ranked choice sound like good ideas from what I read really fast just now. I think Georgia's SC struck down something like that in their post-2000 legislative districts...it wasn't exactly cumulative voting, but they were multi-member districts with 2-4 "posts," and a person in one of those multi-member districts got to vote for each post. It was struck down not because of the basic principle, though, just because the SC thought (correctly) that it was intended to sustain a dying Democratic majority. It didn't help the Dems' case that some of the districts were multi-member and some were not.

There are always arguments about how much representation an area can have on both sides. No matter how you draw the lines, some people are not going to be happy.

Some completely arbitrary way of drawing the districts without regard for what is in them would be the only real solution, but that is not that easy to do.

Or they could increase the number of representatives. That would minimize this problem.

You act like Republicans were the first ones to figure out the benefit of gerrymandering.  That just ain't so.  Both parties have used their powers quite effectively over the decades to district and redistrict as they see fit.

The 1990 map that Martin Frost drew up was no more fair than the 2002 map that Tom DeLay drew up.  

Politics is a contact sport.

This may be the first time we are able to see whether or not the persuasive powers of Roberts hold any sway Kennedy.

'with' Kennedy.  (preview, preview, preview.)

I have begun to wonder if we would not be better off simply doing away with congressional districts altogether. Simply have each state compose its delegation to the house of represenatives based on statewide vote and the total number of representatives the state is constitutionally supposed to have. In other words, divide the votes each party receives by the number of voters for 1 representative per the Constitution. If you have to round, round in the favor of the party with the most votes.

Obviously the idea has problems and needs to be developed more fully, but it is a start.

but that doesn't make it right or good.  Bottom line in my mind is that elections should be representative and competitive, let the best candidate and ideas win.  It's not an ideological thing at all.   When districts are drawn in an attmept by either party to "fix" the results it undermines the whole concept of democracy, damages the public's faith that their vote counts.  Tha't not a good thing.

Not States Rights

It strikes me that when people like what the legislature might do (redistricting) then they want the Court to stay out of it, because it's a political question.  When they don't like what the legislature might do (Kelo) then they want the Court to get into it, because it's a matter of fundamental rights.

Your Constitutional comment about what Congress can do (draw districts) gets you nowhere.  Congress can do lots of stuff, but it can't do things that are illegal.  It can redraw districts, certainly, but it can't do it in a way that violates constitutional rights (as you note, the racial gerrymandering cases).  I don't think you can so easily dismiss this as COngress' prerogative, because there are good arguments to be made that incumbent- or party-derived gerrymandering violates Equal Protection, or Due Process.

I agree with your definition of nonjusticiable political question, but there are a number of factors involved, as you note.  I don't think there's a lack of judicially cognizable standards in this case.  Granted, there's no mathematical formula, but the court certainly has established tests for when Congressional or other process violate a person's rights.

.....California's ridiculous Congressional map exists SOLELY and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than to perpetuate incumbents. 2000 was an inter-party lovefest in Sacramento despite control at all levels by the Democrats.

First, as I mention early on in the entry, I'm against gerrymandered districts, so I don't know where you're going with your intro, there.

The Court has deferred in the enemy combatant issue because the Constitution leaves the conduct of war to a coordinate branch.  This is also the reason given for allowing Japanese-American internment in World War II.  The Court seems unswayed by your argument that if it's up to another branch to deal with, that branch still may not act contrary to someone's Constitutional rights, to Jose Padilla's and Mr. Korematsu's chagrin.

Congress' legislative power is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, as is the President's executive power.  But where the Constitution explicitly delegates the authority to do something (more specific than "make laws," for example) to one branch or another, the others aren't welcome to get involved.  One example might be that the Court would have no authority to appoint a Speaker of the House: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker."  (Art. I, Sec. 2)  It can't pass on whether a Representative was legally elected.  "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."  (Art. I, Sec. 5)  The Court could certainly not lay or collect a tax.  (Art. I, Sec. 8)

Taking it further, three Justices reasoned in Bush v. Gore that since the Constitution explicitly made state legislatures responsible for the conduct of elections, the Supreme Court of Florida couldn't modify their procedures.  There's a lot of daylight between reviewing laws for conformity to the Constitution and encraoching on a power the Constitution specifically delegates to another branch (or another entity altogether).

Whereas we typically hear about the need to increase diversity from the left, in this case if you split up cities among different districts to make them more diverse the left complains that you've diluted the impact of minorities in each one.

If you have four districts, each 75% white and 25% minority, there will be four white representatives elected by the white voters.  Thus, a "diverse" district leads to elected officials who lack diversity.  If instead you have three all-white districts and one all-minority district, you have three white representatives elected by white voters and one minority representative elected by minority voters.  Obviously, the latter is the one which gives minorities proportionate power.  That's why the Voting Rights Act requires majority-minority districts where possible.

There's a huge opportunity for mischief here. But even though the states' rights bloc hasn't enlarged (assuming Alito's confirmation) in body, I believe it will be larger in its persuasive powers.

This case isn't really about redistricting at all. It's about political losers -- Martin Frost, et al. -- using the courts to overturn elections. I hope Justice Roberts will cut to that chase.

Or they could increase the number of representatives. That would minimize this problem.

Exactly.  District populations are up to 600K and growing.  Originally they were given a minimum size of 30K in the Constitution.

Both parties have used their powers quite effectively over the decades to district and redistrict as they see fit.

If I see your straw man, I'll tell him.

Anybody who has read any of my comments on redistricting reform knows that I'm as opposed to a Democratic gerrymander in Georgia as I am to a Republican gerrymander in Texas. (Of course, the mid-decade thing, done by Rs in Texas and now by Rs in Georgia is a new and pernicious development. And as for who is currently benefiting more from partisan gerrymandering, I'll leave you to look at the statistics yourself. I'll give you a hint: it's not the Democrats.)

I am so sick and tired of the "sore loser" argument. I'm assuming you approve of the 2003 Texas redistricting. If so, how can you accuse Democrats of being sore losers in 2004 when Republicans had to drastically redraw the districts mid-decade to beat folks like Frost? It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who <your rhetoric> couldn't beat 'em fairly and went and changed the rules </your rhetoric&gt.

Fact is, it's not about sore losers. It's about somebody getting the short end of the stick every time because the system is messed up.

Judges draw non-competitive districts all the time. They try to group similar people together in the districts they draw... not create the most competitive districts they can.

racial balkanization to warm the cockles of a moonbat heart.

So, from this, I take it you are pretty much against racially integrated communities.

What makes districting in 2000 or 2010 any more fair than in 2003? I don't see any prohibition against redrawing lines on off years, just as long as it's done with every census.

With my first comment, I wasn't suggesting that you were in favor; I was speaking more generally. My apologies.

Certainly the Court has seemed unswayed, but that hasn't stopped some members from pointing out the clear error of the Court's ways (see Scalia's comments on the suspension of the writ) or the Court from essentially tacitly admitting its error, after the fact (execution of spies, with a Court decision rationalizing the execution after it had already taken its place).

And as to whether the Court cannot get involved upon an explicit delegation of power, one need look no further than Powell v. McCormack (395 U.S. 486)(1969) to see that your assertion is off-target.  [There, the textual commitment prong of the political question doctrine did not bar the Court from adjudicating a duly elected congressman's claims that he was unconstitutionally excluded from taking his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.]

Textual commitment is no defense to unconstitutionality

This applies equally well to your comments re: gerrymandering and to Padilla and Korematsu.  Especially regarding Padilla, you'll notice that when push came to shove, the Executive branch backed off its "war powers" push and is in danger of losing the only deference it received in the 4th Circuit [Luttig's home turf].  I don't think there's as much deference as you suggest, nor should there be.

They desperately need everyone from New Orleans to move back into their old ghettos as soon as possible.

So, from this, I take it you are pretty much against racially integrated communities.

Don't be ridiculous.  I'm merely pointing out the obvious that we don't have racially integrated communities.

when one assumes that a majority-white district cannot elect a minority. Without counting senators (Salazar, Martinez and Obama represent majority-white states), you have Sanford Bishop in Georgia (50.3% white, 44.5% black), Emmanuel Cleaver in Missouri (66.3% white, 24.2% black), former Rep. JC Watts in Oklahoma (77.2% white, 7.3% black), John Salazar in Colorado (74.6% white, 21.5% Hispanic)...I imagine there are others, but I don't really care to keep giving counterexamples. In any case, it's sad to think that we have yet to reach a point where we don't begin discussions on minority representation by assuming racism.

twice for this census. There's nothing illegal about it (we think) but that's just not what was done, for obvious reasons. If you can redraw the districts whenever you want, just to kick out incumbents you don't like, it would be utter chaos.

The exact same lines could've been drawn in a round year. Who cares if they did it in an off year? If they want to redraw the districts every 2 years I have no problem with that... though there would be no point to doing it that often. If the democrats take control and want to redraw the lines in 2008 I have no problem with that either. "Just not what was done" doesn't carry much weight with me unless there is a good reason behind it.

Sad state of society when one assumes that a majority-white district cannot elect a minority.

Of course.  Until minorities and whites are well assimilated together, there will be issues which have unique importance in different ethnic communities.  Even without overt racism (and some no doubt still exists), differences on those issues (immigration would be one with Hispanics) presents a high barrier for minorities running in a white majority district.  There are no doubt numerous districts in the South which are on the order of 20% black.  You don't find every fifth representative in those districts to be black, though.

isn't persuasive as to whether the Court will intervene in a political question.  It held the exclusion of a Congressman who met the qualifications set out in the Constitution on the grounds of alleged misconduct was not a political question and was improper; the Court noted that if the Congress had seated Powell and then voted to expel him the Court wouldn't have been able to intervene.  Had there been a dispute over whether Powell qualified for Congress under Art. I, sec. 2, clause 2, the Court likewise acknowledged that the House would have the sole power to resolve it.  

In any event, it's a side issue -- Vieth doesn't say that the remedy for gerrymandering is committed to Congress, it merely notes that if the people don't like it, they have an avenue for redress other than the Court.  I argue, not Scalia or the plurality, that it's Congress' responsibility and not the Court's, so I expect the Texas case will hinge on the "discoverable and manageable standards" issue.  Unless Roberts and Alito feel that they ought to defer to keep out of it in favor of Congress more strongly than Rehnquist or O'Connor did in Vieth.

did you read the rest of the post?

with a majority party redrawing districts whenever it wants to, then we don't have much to talk about. There are a lot of advantages to keeping districts the same for a full ten years--avoiding constituent confusion, avoiding "rigging the system" by the majority party, ensuring some degree of continuity in the representation of various interests of American citizens...and so forth. On the other hand, imagine a system where your representative changes every 1-2 years, where a suburb of Austin is grouped with Houston one year, with Waco the next, with San Antonio a third, where as soon as a Republican is elected in a lean-D district or a Dem in a lean-R district, the majority party redistricts him or her away. It's not a pretty picture.

You cite Bishop in GA, who can get elected with say 20% of the white vote, Cleaver in MO, and former representative Watts in OK.  This is supposed to show how minorities can get elected in majority white districts in the South?  I would say you show how incredibly difficult it is.

It shows that it can be done, and has been done repeatedly, even in districts like Watts' and Salazar's where the proportion of the minority who represents the district is a quarter or less.

The facts behind the Texas redistricting don't support you.  The legislature of Texas did not approve the initial redistricting, it was thrust upon them by the court because of the impasse within and between the legislative and the executive branches.  When the GOP was able to pass a legislative remedy to the solution, they acted to eliminate the judicial remedy.  Representative politics at work.

I was responding this morning to this one comment, not any others you've made.

As for your concern about the benefit of gerrymandering, one could argue that both parties are helped and both parties are hurt by the practice.

Massachusetts went 69-30 Kerry Bush, yet has no Republicans in Congress.  Why aren't at least 1/3 of the delegation Republican?  Ohio went 51-49 Bush-Kerry yet only 1/3 of its representatives are Democrats.

How dare they let politics interfere with... politics.

I find your outrage politically convenient because I doubt that you'd be equally outraged if it helped your views prevail.  I, at least, recognize my hypocrisy in that I am satisfied with the outcomes in Ohio and Texas and will work and strive to keep state legislatures in the GOP hands so that we can continue the same level of success as long as possible.  But to run to the Court to 'make it fair' is just another example of how we allow the tyranny of the judiciary to rule us instead of forcing the American people to elect leaders to do their jobs.

I say "unfair mid-decade redistricting."

Other states had to have compromises "thrust upon them" by the judiciary, including New Mexico, which could easily have eliminated one of 2 congressional Republicans, but didn't. Texas did, simply because they were the only ones (now joined by Georgia) who had the impunity to do so.

that you follow all my comments. But if you don't, watch your assumptions about my motives.

The answer to your question about Massachusetts is: because Republicans lost fair elections. After the 1992 election, the first election with new maps since the 1990 census, Republicans held 2 of the 10 seats (Blute in the 3rd and Torkildsen in the 8th). They had just lost the 1st in a special election in 1991. Blute and Torkildsen held their seats for two cycles. In 1996, with no change in the maps, both lost, resulting in a 10-0 Dem delegation.

The answer to your comment about Ohio is: Republicans cheated. By dismantling Tony Hall's Dayton-based district and Tom Sawyer's Akron-based district, they changed an 11-8 Republican advantage to 12-6 Republican advantage. That's in addition to previously slicing up Columbus and Cincinnati to eliminate the possibility of a Democrat being elected from one of those cities. You can see this pretty clearly in the voting figures: several of the districts (1, 3, 12, 14, 15, 16) eat up lots of Democrats but not enough to elect a Democratic congressman, while only 2 districts (10, 13) are lean-D. The result: a 51-49 advantage becomes a 2:1 advantage. Very clever. And very anti-democratic. The same thing occurred on an even worse scale in Florida.

See the difference, though? In Massachusetts, Dems gained seats with the same map. In Ohio, Florida, Texas, and a host of other states, Republicans had to change the map to gain seats.

Now...on to my so-called "politically convenient" outrage. The most egregious example of Dem gerrymandering is in Georgia, where the map is atrocious and was intended to flip the delegation in Dems' favor. It didn't, but it has elected 3 new Democrats: Jim Marshall, David Scott, and John Barrow. Republicans since gained control and have redrawn the maps. Marshall and Barrow face extremely difficult re-election campaigns. I wish them well as a Democrat. But when they won in '02 and '04, I knew it was because of an unfairness in the map. If they lose in '06, I know it won't be because of any unfairness in the map. So, to put it politely, your accusations are misplaced. I oppose blatant partisan gerrymandering whoever does it, and whoever gains. It just so happens that Republicans have gained the most. Like I said, I've done the research. From what I can tell, you haven't.

Finally, I don't advocate running to the courts. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment, or a movement that starts slowly in one or two states and grows to the rest of the country. Just because I'd derive pleasure from seeing incumbents unfairly crowned into office squirming because of a SC ruling doesn't mean that's the avenue I'd choose.

Democrats want to game the system too, naturallly, and both parties have succeeded far too well (especially with new technology and databases that help them target voters) and are corrupting the system.  The result is that the parties are now picking the voters, rather than the other way around - and there are more "safe seats" and far more divisiveness between the parties - at the cost of collegiality and moderates.

This started a long way back, and the parties first managed to turn the states' Electoral College votes into a winner take all game rather than anything remotely resembling each party's proportional take.  The alarming spread of political gerrymandering continues to polarize politics and to dienfranchise voters.  The racial gerrymandering that the courts have forced under the Voting Rights Act is just as negative.

We really need to be moving toward multi-member districts that are elected on a cumulative voting or ranked-voting basis.  This will put a stop to the worst abuse of racial or political gerrymandering and allow voters in each district a chance to elect a representative that really represents their interests.  It also gives incentives to representatives to appeal to the widest range of voters possible.

I understand there is alot of experimentation with this now, but I am not sure that either party considers it in its interest to reform the current Congressional single member district system, except in states where the other party is in charge.  It might be that the Supreme Court feels it needs to step into the breach, and might decide to start off by mandating a multi-member district on Voting Rights Act grounds.  I agree that it is preferable for the Congress and states to do this, since the Court is not a legislature, but the Court often acts where the legislatures have declinde or punted to adminmistrative agencies.

Zamp Wamp, who aspires to be majority whip, is co-sponsor of Tanner's Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (H.R. 2642), which would require state legislatures to appoint independent commissions that would be responsible for redrawing congressional district boundaries, sets certain standards for redistricting and would allow redistricting only once every ten years (pursuant to census results).  Details are here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02642:

and coverage here:

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_28_05_MK.html

http://moderaterepublican.blogspot.com/2005/06/support-fair-minded-redistri
cting.html

http://chargingrino.blogspot.com/2005/07/redistricting-watch-updates-on-sev
eral.html

George F. Will has previously referred to the "perpetual incumbency

machine" that "has become today's

swollen government operating with no limits

on the incontinent spending and regulating

that is undertaken to perpetuate in office the

spenders and regulators."  Cato is concerned over how lack of competition is seriously weakening the health of our political system and has recently taken up this issue:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4061

www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3941 (Uncompetitive Elections and the American Political System)

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2282

www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa451.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3/cj14n3-2.pdf

www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n2/cj2n2-14.pdf

I am not optimistic that Congress will actively deal with this issue - as it runs against the interests of the members already there - but ignoring it leaves the peril that the Supreme Court will decide that the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act requires jusdicial intervention.

The fact that New Mexico did not decide to redistrict is not dispositive to your point.  Gov. Bill 'Wen Ho Lee-gate' Richardson certainly contemplated redistricting but was dissuaded by the state legislature who were not interested in his shenanigans or Presidential ambitions, despite being nominally of the same party.

The court ordered 2000 redistricting was based primarily on the democrat-drafted 1990 redistricting, so was already a biased model and hardly the most glorious example of fair districts.

This is just another example, I think, of Democrats upset that republicans are actually willing to use the levers of power that they have available to them to level the playing field.  That Dems hadn't used these manuevers in the past was largely a fact that they didn't have to.  They controlled the state legislatures to significant degree, and were able to district as they saw fit.  It's only since the 90's when the GOP has emerged as a strong national party at all levels, took control of Congress, and developed comprehensive startegies to maintain power and gain power where we didn't have it, that suddenly any strategy to do so is 'unfair'.

if you have any interest in the facts--if you actually take a moment to look at the numbers in Ohio, Florida, and a few other states, it's truly mind-boggling what has been allowed to occur.

I won't harp on Texas. Texas is actually one of the less offensive cases for me, since, as you note, one big reason why all those white Dems were in office to begin with was because they had perfectly drawn districts, and that's the way Dems had done it for 40-50 years. But I still think there are big advantages to redistricting only every 10 years, not every time someone new seizes power.

But I am not a big fan of unaccountable commissions or judges making decisions that elected representatives are currently making. Less accountability is supposed to improve the process how? I don't see much of a problem in how the system currently works, certainly nothing that can be fixed with the proposal here.

How is it cheating to work within the system, following the rules that we've had for the whole history of the country?

"stacking the deck," whatever term you wish to use. Same idea.

Stacking the deck is cheating when the rules require a random shuffle.

Drawing the district lines isn't cheating when the rules tell you to draw the district lines.

You may disagree with a system that allows gerrymandering, and you may have illusions that there is some mystical One True Map that would somehow accurately represent The Real Will of the Voters, but to slander the Ohio legislature for doing its job isn't fair to them or to Red State.

from the thread about nuking Mecca...real fan of the overblown rhetoric, aren't you?

Read my diary here or, heck, do your own research, then tell me it's slander to say the Ohio legislature stacked the deck.

But if you don't understand the difference between following the rules, and cheating, then you miss the point entirely.

Both parties have been gaming the system for a long time, and it's getting worse.  While each party may be happy to grab and lock of up turf while they can, it has led to increasing stridency and polarization, to lack of competition in the vast majority of districts (which also encourages that orgy of pork we continue to see), to the disenfranchisement of many voters, etc.  The system is looking increasingly broken (and conservatives and libertarian think tanks like Cato share that view), which is why the Supreme Court seems willing to look at the issue from an Equal Protection view.  

We can have both parties back off at little and pass some minimum standards, or we can continue to let the courts make law.  Which do you prefer?

There is a fair degree of experimentation at the state level on alternative voting systems that better reflect voter choices, like multiple-seat districts with cumulative voting.  I would like to see more experimentation with these systems on the Congressional district level as well.

I encourage you to read more.  For more information on the problem and potential solutions, see my post http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/13/10116/504/50#50

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting

http://users.erols.com/aejohns/node4.htm

The war between the parties using gerrymandering is not benefiting voters, who are increasingly likely to be disenfranchised, and is leading to an increase in economic rent-taking by politicians (pork and corruption), as predicted by public choice theory.

...is that no representative would represent any geographic area.  So a rural corner of a state would not have anyone looking after it.

But most importantly, if you needed help navigating a federal program you wouldn't have anyone to call.  Now if you have a problem with say, your Veteran's benefits, you call your rep, and he/she gets the job done.  Constituent services is something reps are actually very good at. Under a PR system the incentives aren't there to care about on voter's problem, especially in a big state.

The other problem, is that it would never happen. Why would a  person who got elected under one electoral system, ever vote to change the system?