Updated Jan. 2014
Redistricting: Putting Citizens in Control
Imagine for a moment what it would be like if at work, you got to determine
who would give your annual performance review? Or, when applying to
college, you got to decide who would review your application? Or when
applying for a loan, the people who reviewed your application owed you
favors? Usually, none of us have that advantage. But a small group of
individuals do. And they are your elected officials.
Every 10 years, the Federal Government conducts a census of the entire
population. It is a constitutional requirement that came about because of the
need to ensure proportional representation among the states in the US House
of Representatives. At the conclusion of the census, states learn which have
gained seats and which have lost. It is then up to the states to draw the
actual boundaries. In most states, this is left to the state legislature.
It was not until 1962, in a Supreme Court decision (Carr V. Baker), that an
additional requirement was made. All electoral districts, from school boards
to congressional districts, have to have nearly equal populations. Prior to
that time, one congressional district in a state could have thousands more
people than its adjacent district. Carr v. Baker established the right of one
person, one vote.
And the Voting Rights Act of 1964 established the concept of providing
representation for like communities. In Milwaukee, for example, the only
part of the 2011 redistricting found unconstitutional were state assembly
district lines drawn in Milwaukee that would have, effectively, ended any
Latino presence in the state legislature.
Currently, that is all the federal guidance given to states. And those are the
only requirements in Wisconsin’s constitution.
And in Wisconsin, as in many other states, legislators have used the lack of
guidance for their own purposes. When the legislature was divided—as it
was in 2001—then the leadership of the Senate met with the leadership of
the Assembly. Of course, that was after the US Representatives met and
drew their lines. The legislature also had to acknowledge the county and
municipal lines that were drawn earlier than the legislative. If the legislature
couldn’t agree, then the map went to the courts (as for decades). Usually the
1
Updated Jan. 2014
courts make changes at the margins. Without other criteria for drawing the
lines, the courts usually try to adhere to the spirit of the maps before them.
So what is the problem? Lets look at the mythical state of New Trality. Its
population is well distributed and equally divided politically divided. X’s
are one party. O’s are the other. In this state, there are no independents.
This state has four Congressional districts. Given the politics, one would
expect to find 4 very competitive districts.
However, two of the four current Congress people are very powerful—
within Congress and within their state. The way the population shifted, one
is in danger of losing her seat. So she made certain that boundaries ensured
her victory. The other Representative also wanted to be assured of winning,
so tipped the balance his way. While you still have two X’s and two O’s in
office, there are no competitive districts.
In another case, due to voter apathy among O’s, a couple of scandals, and a
highly motivated X party, the X party managed to capture the Governor’s
seat and take control of both houses. This map is the result. Unless
something major happens, they will retain control for the next decade.
The impact of who determines boundaries goes beyond who has a chance to
win an election. Democracy achieves stability when citizens feel that they
are represented and heard. When districts are competitive—that is either
party could win—then candidates tend to run to the middle. They want to
appeal to the broadest group of voters. Similarly, elected officials have
motivation to listen to all of the citizens, not just those who agree with them.
And on key issues, representatives will listen first to their constituents and
then to the party leadership. It is how compromises are found.
In both of these examples, elected officials no longer have to earn their seats.
They can act with a large degree of independence from their constituents.
They do not need to earn the trust and respect of their constituents. For the
officials have chosen their constituents. It makes the job much easier. They
merely need keep the people who vote for them complacent.
2
Updated Jan. 2014
When too many safe seats are created, then competition for that seat usually
comes from the smaller but more intense faction of the party—like the Tea
Party or the far left. That gives those factions greater power within each
party than their actual numbers would suggest. Those are the people who
work on campaigns and show up to vote in primaries. Take a look at some
of the turnouts in several Wisconsin primary elections in 2012 versus the
general election turnout.
Achieving a multitude of safe seats may require some creativity. In
Waukesha county, for example, the city of Waukesha has a large number of
democrats. But the county has no democrats in either the assembly or
senate. Here is an example of how democratic strongholds can be evaded.
To a certain a certain extent, Democrats can achieve this as well, particularly
with Republican suburbs next to more Democratic urban center.
Gerrymandering is not new. The term arose after the 1810 census in
Massachusetts. But with computers, massive data collection on individuals,
and data modeling, it has become more precise. So if winning elections is
the goal of those that draw the lines, it is much more assured than in the past.
The creators of the 2011 maps clearly had partisan advantage in mind. Take
a look at the voting totals for November 2012. More people voted
Democratic than Republican. However, look at the results for the state
legislature, particularly the Assembly. The results do not reflect the voters.
How did the mapmakers achieve their goal? First, they wanted the maps
adopted before the August 2011 state senate recall elections. To do so, they
needed to change the process. For years, Wisconsin began redistricting at
the county and municipal levels. Local entities decided where wards and
polling locations would be and drew local electoral boundaries—for
aldermen, county supervisors, municipal judges, schoolboard, among others.
The state legislature, then, in drawing state boundaries, had to respect local
lines. This meant that an assembly district could not bisect a county
supervisor district, for example, nor could it divide a ward.
In early July, 2011, counties were well into redistricting when the law was
repealed and the proposed legislative maps unveiled. For many counties and
municipalities, they had to return to the drawing board.
3
Updated Jan. 2014
Because the legislature no longer had to respect local government entities,
they were much freer to draw lines to achieve the partisan goal. And here
are examples of the result.
They drew a State Senate district that combines parts of the Cities of
Kenosha and Racine—thus ignoring both city and county boundaries. One
Assembly district—with around 57,500 people—includes parts of 3 counties
(Washington, Milwaukee, and Ozaukee) and parts of several municipalities.
The City of Beloit has also been divided. It is part of 2 Congressional
districts—although 1 district includes only public land and no people. It has
2 state senate and 2 assembly districts. Because of the way the legislature
drew the lines, one ward has only 54 registered voters and only one person
who regularly votes in low turnout elections. The privacy of the vote for
that person has been eliminated.
Monroe County in western Wisconsin has a population of about 47,500—
less than 1 Assembly district. It is a part, however, of 2 Congressional
districts, 3 state senate districts and 3 assembly districts. The small city of
Tomah is divided between 2 state senate and 2 assembly districts. No part of
Monroe County is a majority of any of those districts. It has been orphaned.
In any county wide issue—from funding to education to natural resources,
Monroe County does not naturally have an advocate in the legislature.
The first State Senate District, which includes Door County, is contiguous—
but in a meandering way. To assure Republican majorities, the senate
district includes parts of several counties that may or may not have common
interests.
Remember, however, that this practice is not new. In 2001, one democratic
representative was not favored by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
When the maps were drawn, he had been drawn out of his district by one
block. It was the penalty for being independent of party leadership.
And since the League of Women Voters began actively working towards
reforming Wisconsin’s redistricting process, legislative leadership on both
sides of the aisle have denigrated the idea of an unelected commission
having that authority and have touted the benefits of legislative control.
4
Updated Jan. 2014
What is new is that 7 states now have a different method for drawing
electoral boundaries. They made two changes. Six use independent
commissions to draw the lines. Iowa uses their Legislative Services Bureau.
And they created criteria for how to draw the lines. Arizona requires it
commission to make as many districts as possible competitive. Iowa focuses
on keeping geographical entities like cities and counties together. The
legislatures still must vote on the maps, but the power to draw the lines is no
longer in their hands.
And what has been the impact? Iowa has had their system in place since
1981. There have been no lawsuits. The legislature has adopted the maps.
Just last year, Wisconsin paid about $1.9 million in lawsuits just to gain
access to secret emails to a law firm that was drawing the maps. That does
not include the funds given to a law firm to draw the maps in the first place.
Iowa regularly has competitive races at both the Congressional and state
legislative levels. 2012 let us know how competitive races in Wisconsin will
be.
Another benefit of the Iowa model is the increased transparency.
Wisconsin’s normal process is unusual in that it begins at the county and
municipal level where hearings are held. Usually an expert is called in to
draw the map. That is sent to the state legislature who is required to
preserve local boundaries so that county supervisor districts are not split, for
example. The legislature also holds hearings.
In fact, there is little evidence that public input has any effect on how lines
are drawn. Hearings are a formality.
In Iowa, their Legislative Services Bureau draws the map according to clear
criteria which are:
• Districts must maintain the integrity of local political entities such as
counties and municipalities, and
• Districts must be relatively compact.
The LSA holds four hearings across the state prior to submitting it to the
legislature. Also, organizations and citizens have access to the software and
data they are using so people can draw maps of their own.
Changing how we do redistricting will not solve all of our political
problems. We will still have partisan politics, negative ads, and
5
Updated Jan. 2014
grandstanding. But providing a neutral entity to draw those lines will help
create an environment more conducive to having elected officials be
responsive to their constituents, to providing more competitive races, and
reducing the power of the party elites.
We would finally have a voice, as citizens, to help reduce the partisan
gridlock that runs rampant in Washington and Madison. More legislators
would find it in their interests to challenge leadership when asked to make a
party line vote that their constituents oppose. Without leadership drawing
the legislative lines, they would have fewer threats and promises to keep
legislators obedient. And then, perhaps, the parties could focus on ideas and
problem solving as part of their daily business.
Our counties and cities would have advocates in Madison. Or at least
officials who need to be mindful of their concerns and interests.
Constituents will finally have a real chance to hold their elected officials
accountable. If your elected officials have no fear of losing an election,
holding them accountable is difficult at best.
Creating the change will be difficult given the current political climate.
Several states that created commissions did so through binding referenda.
That possibility does not exist in Wisconsin. To amend our constitution
requires passage by two legislatures before it can be put on the ballot.
We need for the legislatures between now and 2020 to understand the
importance of this issue to the people and to their own interests. Odd things
happen in politics. And if the Democrats were to regain control, then
retribution would be likely. Similarly, while many democrats have signed
on to the proposals for reforming how redistricting is done, they will need to
be reminded of that commitment should they regain power.
Legislation has been introduced that would provide Wisconsin with an Iowastyle process. AB 185 and SB 163 gives the responsibility for drawing
political boundaries to the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau. To
date, the chairs of the Assembly and Senate Committees have refused to
hold hearings on these bills.
It is up to us to make this an issue. For the Legislature to respond, we need
to take several actions.
6
Updated Jan. 2014
• First, we need to ask our state senators and representatives to back
reform proposals currently introduced.
• Second, we need them to press for hearings on the bills.
• Third, if hearings are held, we need solid groups of Democrats,
Republicans and Independents testifying in favor.
• Fourth, we also need to make the issue one which voters raise to their
candidates during election time.
A stable democracy is based on the principle of “consent of the governed.”
Fair and impartial redistricting is a critical part of living up to that principle.
We need to make the legislature take this important step so that we can get
to the hard work of solving real problems by people of different political
points of view. That will only happen if we take control of the process.
7