Fincher: No obvious right answer when it comes to redistricting

PROTECTED CONTENT

If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.

Username

Password

Login

Lost your password?

Username and Password Help

Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.

Email

Submit

← Back

“This is the song that doesn’t end. Yes, it goes on and on, my friend” – Norman Martin and Shari Lewis

By now you are probably sick of hearing about Alabama’s congressional districts.

I can’t blame you. But before you head over to the classifieds, this article is not just another rehash on court rulings. Let’s talk about ideas on how to redistrict.

In Alabama the Legislature is solely responsible for redistricting. The Legislature’s 2023 map looks like it will be the one to stick for the special August primary in four congressional districts, giving Republicans a likely 6-1 advantage over Democrats for Alabama’s U.S. House of Representatives seats.

This strategy is the most common way in which states create congressional districts. However, state legislatures drawing the districts also gets quite a bit of criticism, mostly deserved, because the majority party will always draw districts to benefit its own party members.

The goals of drawing districts should be keeping them compact while also not splitting up communities and counties as much as is reasonable.

There are other options, though, with different ways to categorize them. The website “All About Redistricting” has developed a simplified format for classifying methods to redistrict while recognizing each state has its own quirks in its redistricting process.

A few states have advisory commissions. Advisory commissions either work directly with state legislators in drawing the district map or create the district map and submit it to the legislature.

Nevertheless, the state’s legislature still has final say on what the map will look like, putting us back on square one with the legislature controlling how the map looks.

Other states have independent commissions, which limit or prevent participation from legislators or other public officials.

Of course, finding people who are truly independent or nonpartisan is easier said than done. In fact, it might not actually be possible. Besides, one or both parties will complain about the map being unfair no matter what map is chosen.

Instead of independent commissions, some states embrace bringing in partisan participants. The idea of a politician commission is to give both parties equal representation in drawing the districts to try to prevent one party from dominating the process and draw unfair maps.

The problem with politician commissions is they often deadlock because Democrats and Republicans each prefer a map to benefit their own party.

Finally, there are states that have backup commissions. These only come into play when the legislature cannot pass a map, often because the state law requires some level of a supermajority of legislators to agree on the map.

Backup commissions are generally composed of other partisan officials or their appointees, leaving us with the same problem we have with politician commissions.

I have recently heard several people offer a different kind of solution by saying we should double the number of seats in the U.S. House to try to address gerrymandering – the practice of drawing oddly shaped districts to benefit one party.

I disagree with this idea. Gerrymandering happens in county commission and city council races even though those are smaller districts in land area and population. Having more House seats might help slightly by creating smaller districts, but not nearly enough.

Besides this, there are currently 435 members in the U.S. House. The more that number increases, the less power each representative has to get anything done. House members – particularly those who are new – already complain about how little they can do.

So, if all these options I have discussed are flawed, is redistricting destined to be a bummer no matter what? Maybe not. Though it is not perfect, the best redistricting plan I have discovered is conducted in Iowa of all places.

Each state has a nonpartisan agency that helps legislators research and write the bills legislators introduce during legislative sessions. It is called the Legislative Services Agency, or LSA, in Alabama.

Iowa’s version of the LSA oversees drawing the maps for redistricting. This could also work in Alabama because not only does the LSA work with members of both parties but its employees are deeply familiar with the state, its values and its geography.

Of course this is also an imperfect solution. The LSA may be tempted to draw legislators who are difficult to work with into districts they would be more likely to lose.

Nevertheless, this solution seems like the most professional and impartial way to handle redistricting.

If you are one of the few people who is not sick of hearing about redistricting, think about coming up with a better plan. Seriously. We could use one right about now.

Brandon Fincher is an academic journal editor at Auburn University. He lives in Opelika with his wife, daughter and two Labrador retrievers. You can find his writing at brandonfincher.com.