Redistricting Reform: Examples of Short-Term Tasks in Your State

March 7, 2003

1. Preserve the story of the 2001-2002 redistricting process:

• Compile the names and contacts of key legislators and staffers involved in redistricting and major press clips
  
• Obtain copies of the final redistricting plans, population numbers, court decisions, relevant court briefs and/or expert reports (if available and of importance)
  
• Download and preserve important pages from state or jurisdiction's website (census data, court decisions, etc)
  
• Ask state officials to maintain its redistricting website information in an archive rather than take it off its public site. Note the types of data provided  (census data, court decisions, etc) and what might have been added in the future, compared to other states like that provided by Arizona.

2. Analyze the impact of redistricting on 2002 election results and compare to its impact in 1992 :

• How did the plan change the partisan composition of the legislature? Did either party win or lose a majority? Was term limits a factor?
  
• Any differences in partisan impact for state legislature and for Congress?
  
• Did one party win a disproportionate share of seats, compared to votes? How many seats were competitive?
  
• How did women and people of color fare as candidates?            

3. Research what kinds of changes could be made and addressed by the legislature:

• What require statutory change and what require constitutional change?
  
• How many years are necessary to amend the constitution?
  
• What history of consideration of reform legislation exists in the state?
  
• Any past success in incremental reforms such as more sunshine on the process?

4. Learn about other states’Äô experiences before seeking to switch to a nonpartisan or commission approach. The Iowa method, for example, will need to be adapted to the realities of a state covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On commissions, having non-voting chairs can lead to deadlock, while voting tiebreaker chairs can result in a partisan plan a legislature could have developed itself. Rigid criteria can be fair, but also tricky. Compactness generally hurts racial minorities and urban communities, while exact population equality to zero deviation can straightjacket states into unintended consequences.

5. Beware of mid-decade redistricting rule changes. Some state leaders are trying to change lines in 2003 for partisan gain (GA, NM and TX being leading examples), while others (KS and ND) are taking serious looks at commissions. Are there opportunities to change the rules for any mid-decade redistricting or to trigger it?

(Thanks to CVD Advisory Committee Member Jeff Wice for suggesting many of these ideas.)