Consider these shocking statistics: Of 401 U.S. House incumbents who ran for re-election in 2004, only seven were defeated. Four of them were in Texas. These figures may explain why the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case challenging Texas’ redistricting plan.

As reported in the Saturday Wall Street Journal, the case highlights growing concerns that sophisticated redistricting made possible by technology has created too many safe havens for incumbents. In 1992, 88.3 percent of congressional incumbents were re-elected. Already bad enough, but in 2004, that election rate was an astonishing 97.8 percent.

The Texas redistricting plan in question favored Republicans, resulting in a net gain of six seats, but it came after a history of gerrymandering in Texas that favored Democrats. So the concern is that both parties are becoming too adept at drawing districts that reliably elect their candidates.  The result is less competition between parties and increasing polarization in Congress.

Again, this theory is substantiated by other figures, again thanks to the WSJ, about the 2004 election, when:

· only 22 House contests were decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points.

· there were only 59 “split” districts – where voters chose one party for president and another for the House. That was just 14 percent of the national total. By contrast, in 1972, there were 192 “split” districts.

What these figures mean is that voters increasingly have little choice for change other than within a party primary. But incumbents are usually protected there, as well, by fundraising ability, voter familiarity and party machines.

How can districts be made more competitive? If they’re drawn by a nonpartisan or bipartisan panel instead of by Legislatures. However, recent moves in that direction have been unsuccessful in a couple of states. California rejected a ballot initiative in November that would have had an independent commission of retired judges draw the state’s districts, and a similar measure was rejected in Ohio.

The undeniable conclusion is that partisan protection gained through redistricting diminishes the democratic process in this country. How can the court rule in a way that will put the genie back in the bottle? I can’t imagine.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment