by Dr. Quentin Kidd
Here’s a question I’ve been getting a lot from people lately: Will we see the effects of redistricting in this fall’s General Assembly elections? The answer I’ve been giving is, yes, but not in a good way.
From a legal and constitutional perspective, redistricting – that once-a-decade ritual where the General Assembly adjust the electoral lines to reflect population changes that have occurred during the prior ten years – is not designed to favor or harm any political party. When drawing new lines states must consider the contiguity of new districts, ensure equal population across all districts, adhere to the federal Voting Rights Act, try to keep communities of interest together, and draw districts that are as compact as possible. There are no requirements to protect parties or incumbent office holders.
However, because redistricting is handled through the normal legislative process it necessarily becomes political. Without a doubt, when the General Assembly was controlled by Democrats, redistricting favored Democrats; when the General Assembly was controlled by Republicans, redistricting favored Republicans.
This year, however, the General Assembly was split. Republicans controlled the House and Democrats controlled the Senate. Both parties realized that any redistricting bill that hurt the other too badly wouldn’t pass in both chambers, and that any stalemate would send redistricting either to the federal courts or the Obama Justice Department. Neither party wanted to risk those ends so they made an agreement: Democrats would control redistricting of the Senate and Republicans would control redistricting of the House. Neither side would hurt the other too terribly badly.
The initial bill that passed both the House and Senate was vetoed by Governor McDonnell because it removed a whole senate seat from Virginia Beach (and displaced an incumbent Republican). McDonnell thought that went too far, so the Democrats put the seat back and the Governor signed off.
The net effect of this process – literally a party protection process as much as anything else – is not necessarily good for democracy. Democratic elections confer formal legitimacy on those elected to form the government, create laws, and enforce those laws. However, if electoral competition is stymied via gerrymandered districts then the very legitimacy that the election is supposed to confer is weakened.
As we head into the final stretch of the first General Assembly election cycle post-redistricting, we can see the ill-effects of the process. For the House of Delegates, only 27 of the 100 seats have a contest between candidates representing the two major political parties. In the state Senate, 24 of the 40 seats have a contest between candidates representing the two major political parties.
It seems pretty safe to say that we can expect little from the House elections in terms of real debate or competition. The Senate is going to be as close as we get. Of those 24 contested Senate seats, 16 are defended by incumbent Democrats and 4 are defended by incumbent Republicans. The remaining 4 seats are open contests, two that historically favor Republicans and two that historically favor Democrats.
The net effect of all of this is likely to be stasis. And while stasis does not necessarily represent a problem in elections, it does when we got there through gerrymandered maps.
Read the entire Bearing Drift Magazine.
