by Nancy Sims
The Associated Press
This is the last column in our series on redistricting. We have assessed and discussed the process – from Congressional districts to city and county representation.
Now that you understand the process, let’s discuss the outcomes and the effect of redistricting on democracy.
My first experience with redistricting was in 1981. As a legislative staff member, I was charged with working on a team to make sure our community had strong representation. I followed several people and participated in drawing the district lines on big maps and boxes of colored pencils, based on results generated from expert analysis of the census data.
By 1991, computers had entered the redistricting process and everything changed. Anyone could move lines with a simple click of a mouse. The maps were so detailed and full of data that we could move a line just a tad and completely change the make-up of a district. Imagine a Democratic legislator saying, "Move that block. It had too many Republicans." Whereas a Republican legislator might say, "Move that apartment complex into the next district".
This change created the ability to draw districts with more significant partisan alignment. Over the last 20 years, this leverage has continued to increase. As computers have become more and more sophisticated, our districts have become more and more polarized. The bottom line is that most of the Congressional, State Representative and State Senate districts are drawn to elect either a Democrat or a Republican. There are districts designed to elect target minority communities. Just to be clear though, we don’t "pack" minorities in districts – we just make sure that a majority of residents in a specific area match criteria.
This process, as it has evolved, has created a chilling effect on governing because a candidate is very likely to be re-elected no matter what they do. There is some possibility that you might face a primary challenge. So, a Republican who represents a very conservative population and was re-elected with 65% of the vote has little or no reason to work across the aisle to solve a problem. A Democrat who represents a liberal, inner city community and was re-elected with 85% of the vote has little reason to work with the aforementioned Republican.
As a result, we have achieved partisan gridlock all across the U.S. and have further impeded democracy. The Houston area has 8 Members of Congress. This year, one of the incumbents faces a primary challenge while the rest are almost assured a walk to re-election. One of them will face a partisan challenge in November, however, the district is so skewed that he will not likely have to put up much of a fight.
Among 33 State Representative races in the Houston area, there are only a couple of swing districts. A swing district is considered one that could be won by either party.
You must vote in the primary if you want to see a change in leadership. The reality of the situation is that if Sheila Jackson Lee wins her primary race, she is assured re-election in the fall due to the boundaries of her district. John Culberson is assured re-election due to the boundaries of his district and they will continue to counter each other.
If we want to see a change in governing gridlock, we need to pay close attention to the redistricting process. As proposals are presented, be sure and watch where your community ultimately lands. One year, a Houston community was split between 3 different Congressional districts. Their power was so diluted that they could not win on any type of funding requests or support.
Join me in asking our legislators to consider what is best for Houstonians when they draw lines in 2011. Let’s look at supporting communities of interest and finding ways to create competition between districts. If we are to have a truly representative government, we must have competition!