While on the topic of so-called “independent” redistricting, fellow Republicans would do well to reflect on the consequences. Consider Jay O’Callaghan’s observations below:
The Democrats six seat edge in 2012 was largely due to its five seat gain in the nine states with appointed commissions (which controlled 99 U.S. House seats) and its seven seat gain in the nine states, where the courts intervened and drew the map for 120 U.S. House seats. This means that in 2012, for maybe the first time in U.S. history, appointed rather than elected officials decided the boundaries of a majority of (219) U.S. House districts.
The entire piece by O’Callaghan is worth reading. For fear of ripping off the entire article, I won’t bother you with the entire five-course meal… but you may taste the steak:
Most of these redistricting commissions are chosen, like the one in Arizona, by left-leaning lawyers (in this case from Arizona’s judicial nominating commission) according to Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that, “if you are going to have gerrymandering of congressional districts, it might as well be done by a state legislature, which is accountable to the people, rather than a commission like this,” which is accountable to no one.
As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, “some of the commissioners were motivated in part in some of the line drawing decisions by a desire to improve Democratic prospects in the affected districts,” and that the Commission retained a mapping consultant who “had worked for Democratic, independent, and nonpartisan campaigns, but no Republican campaigns.”
Moreover, in the Arizona decision, SCOTUS strove to redefine the word “legislature” to include unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic bodies like Independent Redistricting Commissions.
In short, despite the failures of the current system, the solutions aren’t exactly solutions at all — nevermind non-partisan. They are intensely partisan, driven by partisan interests, and eerily benefiting one side of the partisan divide in a fashion so consistent as to be quite-nearly conspiratorial.
Needless to say, we have a solution in search of a problem.
