Redistricting Dos and Don’ts

Because of COVID delays to the 2020 census, redistricting legislation is just now being seriously considered around the country, including Texas. There has been much speculation as to what extent redistricting legislation will affect the 2022 midterm elections. There will certainly be intense debates about the various redistricting plans proposed and ultimately adopted by the Texas legislature.

A prior article of mine suggested that we should consider enacting simple redistricting rules that, if followed, would handcuff legislation and make it less prone to political skullduggery. Reducing redistricting options would undoubtedly result in districts seen by voters as fairer, thus reducing the temptation for politicians to game the system.

In that article I presented some of the redistricting criteria currently used by states. These criteria — not required to be followed by the Texas legislature — provide a useful context for discussing what types of simple rules might be followed as district maps are drawn.

Compactness: Having the minimum distance between all the parts of a constituency

Compact districts will undoubtedly be looked upon more favorably by voters. To ensure “compactness” some sort of hard criteria would need to be enacted. Compactness, for example, could be geometrically measured on the basis of how much it deviated from the shape of an ideal circle or square.

Contiguity: All parts of a district being connected with the rest of the district.

Contiguity would also seem to be a reasonable requirement, though sufficiently compact districts should, in most cases, turn out to be contiguous. But like compactness, this criterion begs for some sort of geometrical definition to ensure fairer districts.

For example, see District 5 shown in the map below. Contiguity is ensured by a tiny connection between the northern boundary of Bastrop County and the southern boundary of Williamson County. Though contiguity is technically maintained, this map does not pass the smell test.

Preservation of political subdivisions: Minimize crossing county or city boundaries.

This criterion seems particularly important. Voters already share common interests with others that live in their counties and cities. They are already considering and expressing those interests when they vote for representation in their local entities. School districts should also be added to this list.

This criterion might also be extended to honoring districts subject to redistricting, referred to as “nesting”. Texas has 15 districts for State Board of Education and 150 districts for the Texas House. Why not simply specify that each of the Board of Education Districts must contain exactly 10 House districts?

And imagine if Texas had 30 instead of 31 State Senators (the Lieutenant Governor could always break ties). Then each Senate District could simply contain exactly five House districts.

The problem is more difficult for Congressional districts. In 2022, Texas will elect 38 US Representatives, or just shy of four Texas House districts per Congressional district. Perhaps each Congressional district could be required to contain three complete Texas House districts. Gerrymandering would then be confined to only 36 Texas House districts needed to ensure one person-one-vote.

Preservation of communities of interest: Where residents have common interests.

This criterion sounds fine in principle but could be problematic in practice. There are many ways to define “communities of interest”, leaving a serious loophole for political malfeasance. For example, who’s not to say in today’s polarized politics, “Republican voters” and “Democratic voters” constitute communities of interest.

Preservation of cores of prior districts: Refers to continuity of representation.

This is another criterion that might be difficult to enforce with simple rules, Besides, continuity of representation should be something voters decide upon, not those who draw district maps.

Avoiding pairing incumbents: Avoiding contests between incumbents.

This criterion sounds like an incumbent-security provision — something elected politicians should want, but which might not be in the best interests of constituents.

Prohibition on using partisan data or incumbency: Such as election results or registration.

This seems like a great criterion. Eliminating the use of incumbency and partisan data in the redistricting process would reduce the temptation to gerrymander.

Competitiveness: Evening partisan balance and avoiding “safe” districts.

Even well-balanced and well-intentioned redistricting could end up with significant numbers of “unbalanced” districts. That should be fine if that’s the will of voters in that district. Competitiveness created by redistricting legislation seems like a poor substitute for true electoral competition.

Proportionality: District balance should reflect statewide preferences of voters.

This criterion is another one that seems reasonable, but likely difficult to enforce. Besides, if unbiased districts are constructed based on enforceable criteria, this criterion will likely take care of itself.