This kind of fight over congressional redistricting, which included three special sessions of the Legislature and the spectacle of Democratic lawmakers fleeing first to Oklahoma and then to New Mexico, should not happen again. On that point the federal panel appeared to agree, even as it rejected claims that the new map discriminated against minority voters.
Though the federal panel decided that what the Republican legislative majority did with congressional redistricting was legal, it questioned its rightness. The judges took note of how the arrival of computers has made it far easier for legislators to redraw congressional lines to partisan advantage and, in doing so, to protect themselves from punishment by the voters.
"We know it is rough and tumble politics, and we are ever mindful that the judiciary must call the fouls without participating in the game," the federal court said. "We must nonetheless express concern that in the age of technology this is a very different game."
The court also said, "Congress can assist by banning mid-decade redistricting, which it has the clear constitutional authority to do, as many states have done."
The point is well-taken, and Congress -- and the Texas Legislature -- should consider it.
The state also should enact a change in the way we redistrict, not just when we redistrict. We have supported a change in how redistricting is carried out before, and one Republican state senator, Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, has introduced such legislation repeatedly, unfortunately without result.
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures survey, 12 states have assigned redistricting -- not just congressional, but legislative as well -- to some panel other than their legislatures.
Perhaps the most intriguing is Iowa, where much of the grunt work of congressional redistricting is carried out by a nonpartisan staff under the general oversight of a temporary commission appointed by the Legislature's House and Senate party floor leaders.
Iowa law sets the standards for the staff to follow, including a ban on considering the desires of incumbents, challengers or parties; the addresses of incumbents; the political affiliation of registered voters; or prior election results. The resulting map is still subject to legislative approval, but there are limits on how much it can be amended. One result of this approach is that Iowans actually see election contests for their congressional seats.
The Iowa approach cuts against everything Texas redistricting has meant to both parties, both of which start with incumbent protection for the party in control and move on to the ambitions of state legislators in the majority party. Before the next redistricting in 2011, Texas should adopt a procedure that focuses on citizens, not parties.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.