Feds clear Georgia to use new congressional redistricting map

Macon.com ^ | 10/1/05

[JohnnyZ]

But the methods that were used to obtain the results (mid-decade redistricting) left much to be desired.

The right thing to do was redress the unjust gerrymander as soon as possible.

What other method would you suggest to accomplish that?

[Clintonfatigued]

My concern is that legislatures could decide, on a whim, to conduct redistricting every time a state legislature changes power. There is no Federal law requiring states to redistrict only once per decade. What if the Democrats win the New York state Senate and decide, "Let's change the boundries"?

[JohnnyZ]

What if the Democrats win the New York state Senate and decide, "Let's change the boundries"?

Legislators pass laws. If the change to the boundaries is fair, there's no problem. If the change is unfair, it's the unfairness that is the problem, not the timing.

[Clintonfatigued]

Are there any pictures of the newly drawn districts?

[Dan from Michigan]

I agree. God help us if the democrats take the state house and senate here in MI if Granholm somehow wins again.

[LdSentinal]

I'll try to find them. The black percentage in Jim Marshall's district drops from 38% of the voting age population to 30%. In Phil Grey's district, it drops from 24% to 11%.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Legislators pass laws. If the change to the boundaries is fair, there's no problem. If the change is unfair, it's the unfairness that is the problem, not the timing."

---

The problem is *who* determines "fairness." I don't think that courts have any right to determine if a district is "fair"; courts may strike down a district drawn by a state legislature if it violates the U.S. Constitution (e.g., one-man, one-vote, racial discrimination, etc.) or the Voting Rights Act or some other federal law, but it isd up to legislatures to determine what is "fair."

Clintonfatigued is correct that if mid-decade redistricting is permitted in a case such as Georgia, in which the legislature had adopted a plan in 2002 and such plan was not struck down by the courts, then nothing would stop legislatures in New York or California or Illinois or New Jersey or anywhere from redistricting every two years until they get their desired result.

Current federal law authorizes the states to draw congressional districts. I think it would be a good idea for Congress to amend the law so that states are not allowed to draw districts that (i) are not contiguous or (ii) split more than a certain percentage of counties or towns (perhaps excluding large cities, which sometimes make sense that they get split). But we can't possibly expect state legislatures not to take politics into account when drwaing districts, nor would it necessarily be a good idea for redistricting to be completely politics free (why shouldn't Republican areas in Miami be kept together?).

I also think that federal law should be clarified so that no one can claim that state legislatures can redistrict more than once in a decade. I haven't read the pertinent section of federal law regarding congressional redistricting, but it seems to me that since the Constitution dictates that reapportionment occurs only once a decade, and since the federal redistricting law says that districts need to be drawn by the states usingthe latest Census data, it can be argued that current federal law limits legislative redistricting to just once per decade. Absent when a court strikes down a redistricting plan and requires the legislature to try again, no plan adopted by a legislature has ever been replaced by the legislature before the subsequent Census, and I think this is due to an understanding by legislators that they only get one shot at redistricting per decade.