To anyone following the Colorado Legislature, it is painfully obvious that our system of congressional redistricting is hopelessly broken. Indeed, this week’s political posturing and dysfunctional process were inevitable. We had high hopes at the beginning of the year. Legislative leadership seemed committed to a different path when they formed a bipartisan Joint Select Commission on Redistricting in an attempt to head off a likely stalemate. But once the maps came out, the bickering began and the entire operation ground to a halt.
Redistricting happens every ten years after a census, adjusting boundaries so that each congressional district contains the same number of people. In Colorado, the constitution requires the state legislature to pass a bill approving the new district boundaries. The legislature, this year controlled by Democrats and Republicans, tried dutifully to gain advantage and control of the congressional delegation for their respective party for the next decade. But unlike the requirement for the legislature to pass the state budget, legislators this year took a pass on redistricting. It’s not unusual and more often than not, the process has been settled by the court rather than lawmakers.
It’s almost surprising that lawmakers didn’t come to agreement, for this is the unique process where our elected officials choose us, the voters, rather than us choosing them. On both sides of the aisle, partisan operatives use sophisticated technology to predict voters’ preferences and draw maps accordingly. The goal is to maximize partisan advantage, rather than creating districts where voters are represented effectively.
So we watched as the Democrats introduced a bill in the Senate and the Republicans introduced a bill in the House. We even remained hopeful that a compromise would be reached. But the many hours of backroom meetings resulted only in both party maps dying before Sine Die. Now the courts will decide the issue; lawsuits from each party have already been filed.
There is a better way. A more rational process would be to appoint an independent commission to do the work, similar to the one that will draw the new state legislative boundaries this summer. The commission members are appointed by the Legislature, the Governor and the Colorado Supreme Court’s chief justice. The members must be geographically diverse and include at least one unaffiliated voter.
If Colorado had congressional redistricting done by an independent commission that reflects the even split between major political parties and unaffiliated voters, we would likely see a less contentious process and better negotiated maps.
We also need to set clear priorities about how to draw the maps. Some of those priorities are set for us: the requirements that each district have the same number of voters and be compliant with the Voting Rights Act to protect minority voters from discrimination. After that, there is leeway in what factors to consider. Indeed, the failed Joint Committee had little agreement, and nearly no discussion, about how to approach drawing the lines.
We believe that the process should value maintaining communities of interest. This is a tough one, since there are many communities of interest and inevitably maintaining one will mean separating another. But as much as possible, the new maps should keep voters in cities, towns, and counties together, as well as voters with shared social, cultural, ethnic, and economic interests. Race and ethnicity can and should be considered when drawing lines. Importantly, race and ethnicity cannot be used to dilute minority community voting power by “cracking” (dividing into multiple districts) or “packing” (over-concentrating) minority voters.
Those drawing the maps should also factor in competitiveness. Competitive districts often have more vigorous campaign debates, and are more likely to have elected representatives who are responsive to the interests of their constituents. Where practicable (and that won’t be everywhere), competition in districts should be encouraged and at the very least, lines should not be drawn for the benefit of incumbents.
It’s no surprise that people in power want to stay in power, so for decades partisan wrangling has led to gerrymandered redistricting maps and collusion among the major political parties to create safe districts. It’s time for a system that serves the voters first. Let’s do away with the current process which clearly does not work and does little more than to protect the interests of incumbents and the parties’ chosen candidates.
Jenny Flanagan is executive director of Colorado Common Cause.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
