Print
Close Window
This is a printer-friendly version of this article. To view the online version of this article, click here.
Whose Line is it Anyway?
Red District, Blue District, My District, Your District
By Emily Grimm
Published: May 3, 2010
RALEIGH - A "perfect storm" is brewing here in North Carolina. It's election season and this is the year of the census. Both of these factors lead straight to the politically dynamite topic of redistricting.
As the late N.C. Sen. Ham Horton used to say when he was pushing for redistricting reform, "We have allowed the representatives to select their voters, rather than the voters selecting their representatives." His statement rings especially true today.
Redistricting is the process of adjusting political boundaries in response to national and state censuses that occur every 10 years. It can be a daunting task for those given the opportunity to essentially redraw the lines that, in turn, are supposed to create fair, unbiased political competition within state districts.
The ultimate goal is for state assemblies to create districts that are drawn in an equitable way that represent the voting public fairly. Further, whenever a new census occurs, the opportunity arises to either responsibly reassess each district's boundaries or to continue to be consumed by political self-interests.
When districts are not drawn fairly, voters are at a disadvantage in equitably participating in democracy. The all-to-common practice of gerrymandering -- when a district's boundaries are altered to reflect an unfair advantage or disadvantage to a particular political party or group of constituents -- makes for several fundamental problems. Districts become less competitive for elections, creating virtually predetermined electoral outcomes. Voters are less inclined to vote when election campaigns become "slam dunks" due to the lack of competitive choices. Who wants to vote when they know their vote will not really matter because they live in a district that was the product of gerrymandering?
It is inherently a conflict of interest to allow those currently in office to draw their own district lines. Clearly the politicians who run the show are the only benefactors. Permitting legislators to selectively fill out their own report cards assures that their motivation is their own selfish political fiefdoms rather than the betterment of their constituency. It has been said that North Carolina has four of the 20 worst gerrymandered districts in the country -- certainly not something to brag about. In fact, it is a testimony to political self-interest and self-preservation.
Reforming North Carolina's redistricting process is crucial to making the political environment one that ensures fair and equitable outcomes, following the will of the electorate. State Sen. Ellie Kinnaird believes a new independent redistricting committee is key.
"An independent redistricting commission should draw the districts," Kinnaird says. "The limitations should be that no one branch -- the governor or the legislature -- should dominate as to appointments and that knowledgeable and neutral citizens should be appointed."
Currently 18 states are using similar committees, attempting to fairly tackle redistricting in a way that is representative, neutral and apolitical. Each state's committee is structured differently, but each has in place certain constraints designed to help ensure an impartial and trustworthy outcome. In some cases, those on the committee are ineligible to run for office in any state district for the two upcoming terms. Others require a super majority commission approval to pass any redistricting proposal. These solutions are perhaps imperfect, but unquestionably steps in the right direction.
"One person, one vote" needs to become a reality in North Carolina. A fair, new redistricting process is paramount to guaranteeing citizens a voting voice in their own state. The intended objectives of the Founding Fathers may be arguable in some cases, but clearly "manufactured districting," designed to strongly influence or even predetermine, election outcomes is contrary to the ethical design of America's founders.