No I'm not referring to the fact that most people don't even know who represents them in the house of representatives. I'm talking about something far more sinister. This is about a Supreme Court case that can potentially be far more devastating to our democracy even than the Citizens United case (which opened up unlimited spending in elections from Super Pacs). It is actually quite crazy that I am just now being made aware of this case since it is already 8 years old, especially since I consider myself quite educated about politics. The case: League of United Latin American Voters v. Perry.
Ok so a little background is in order. Every 10 years the Federal Government conducts a Census and then reassign the number of seats each state gets in the House of Representatives according to population changes during the last 10 years. States that increase their population get more seats and vice versa. All that is simple enough. The tricky part is redrawing all the district lines, determining who represents where and whatnot. This occurs in every state even if they did not change their number of representatives; this is in order to accommodate in state changes such as moving out of rural areas and into cities. This is not a simple process. It is one of the most politically divisive, difficult, and contentious activities related to representation. One big problem is that our Constitution gives each state the right to accomplish this task however they see fit, meaning there is no standard operating procedure. Many states allow the state legislatures to draw the lines, some (like my home in California) have turned to non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions (often involving former judges) so that the lines are drawn fair.
Ok, so there is no way to determine exactly what is fair. There is a bunch of legitimate criteria that could be considered fair, some of which is contradictory. I have spent time studying minority-majority districts and find this to be a perfect example of this problem. There are legitimate arguments both for and against this intentional race conscious redistricting. On the one hand these districts are far more likely to elect minority candidates who are then more likely to sponsor minority favored legislation (descriptive representation). On the other hand, this often requires drawing funky looking districts that pull minority voters out of other districts making them whiter. The argument here is that there are now less candidates who would favor legislation for minorities. Furthermore, this process tends to help the Republican Party which, by a wide margin, is not the party of choice for minorities (at least for Southern African Americans). Basically they claim that the push for descriptive representation actually hurts the minorities it intends to help (substantive representation). So what's fair?
Well, I think there is one thing that we can all agree is not fair, and that brings me back to the Supreme Court. In 2003 Republicans took control of the Texas state legislature and decided to redraw the lines again, this time to help out the republicans before the 2004 election. It worked, the state went from electing 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. All because the lines were redrawn. But this was no ordinary partisan redistricting; it occurred mid-decade. That's right, only 3 years after the last time the lines were drawn Republicans decided to do it again. At the time this was completely unprecedented in modern America. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was within the state's rights to redistrict as often as they like so long as they do it at least once every 10 years after the census. So in the title when I ask who you congressman is, I'm referring to the fact that at anytime your Congressman can change. If you live in a Republican state and you are represented by a Democrat who just barely eked out a victory in the last election (that really doesn't happen either since most districts are drawn to be safe for one party or the other, you scratch my back i'll scratch your kinda thing) the Republicans can redraw the district to the next election there is suddenly a 10 point partisan swing in the new district that was represented by the Democrat.
Let's look at how nasty this can get. In Georgia there is a Democratic Representative in the 12th district, his name is John Barrow. He is actually the last remaining white Democrat in the South. Georgia Republicans used a mid-decade redistricting to challenge the vulnerable Democrat (who held on to win anyway). In 2006 Republicans took control of the Georgia state legislature and, surprise surprise, decided to redraw the lines. They went after Barrow, even drawing his home in Athens out of his district. He moved to Savannah and won again anyway- but by less than 1,000 votes. After the 2010 Census they redrew his district again, this time eliminating his new home in Savannah- while adding Augusta. Between these two redistricting's the district because far more Republican. Had it been drawn the way it is now in 2008 McCain would have won it with 58% of the vote, as it was Obama carried it with 54%- that's a huge swing. Somehow he was continued winning, and has been remarkably placid over all the political shenanigans. The question remains however, when he eventually loses (or gives up his seat) will a Democrat ever again win in Georgia's 12th. Maybe if they retake the state house and redraw the lines for themselves...
No comments:
Post a Comment