Plea to take politics out of map-making

No elected official – neither Republican nor Democrat — should be “voter-proof.”

“Voter-proof.” Does that sound like representative government to you?

It doesn’t to Thomas Geoghegan either.

Now we have to hope it does not ring true to a panel of federal court judges in Philadelphia either.

Geoghegan used the term to describe Pennsylvania’s twisted congressional map. He is representing a group of Democratic voters who have sued to have the maps tossed out.

This is all about “gerrymandering.”

That’s what happens when politics overtakes democracy. It’s an equal opportunity sport. Both sides do it.

Every 10 years, after the latest federal Census, members of the state Legislature are required to redraw congressional districts, allegedly to better represent shifts in population.

Not surprisingly, that does not always happen.

Instead, the party in power too often twists and bends the district’s to help the chances of their candidates, often incumbents, in getting re-elected.

In other words, they attempt to make their hard-won turf “voter-proof.”

Exhibit A? The 7th Congressional District, currently held by Republican U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan. The 7th used to for the most part adhere to the borders of Delaware County. Not any more. Due to the wonders of “gerrymandering,” Meehan now sees his domain stretch into no less than five suburban counties. Meehan has routinely piled up victories with 60 percent of the vote since the last time the map was redrawn.

He’s not alone. While the state has routinely drifted Democratic in recent years in statewide and presidential races, since 2012 and the last redistricting Republicans have won 13 of the state’s 18 districts in each election.

The plaintiffs are arguing their case in federal court. But they are taking a different route than the usual partisan complaint. Routinely, suits of this type see plaintiffs asking the court to stop too much political favoritism – by both parties – in the redistricting process. This time lawyers are asking the judges to take politics out of the equation altogether. There’s more at stake than simply controlling a seat in Congress. It’s the process that is fundamentally affected as well. Plaintiffs asking the judges to toss these maps note that “gerrymandering” is one of the basic building blocks of our extreme partisan divide and gridlock in Washington. It’s pretty simple, really. With more competitive districts, those we send to Washington likely would be more willing to reach across the aisle and work with the opposing party. They also would be more reactive to the needs of their constituents, since their spot in Washington would not be nearly as secure.

In essence, the “gerrymandering” mess makes the threat of delivering your message at the ballot box moot. Go ahead and cast your ballot. The district has been stacked against you. That’s not the way the system is supposed to work.

Lawyers for Republican state legislators named in the suit insist the filing is merely sour grapes, the classic loser’s lament. They say lawyers for Democrats are asking the courts to do what voters did not. They point out citizens are still able to vote, make political contributions, speak out in public and also contact their representatives.

They also question the timing, coming six years after the last congressional redistricting, but just months after Donald Trump stunned Democrats by winning the 2016 presidential race.

A victory for the plaintiffs would be a political earthquake, possible including a quick redrawing of the maps before the 2018 midterm elections. It would also establish new rules for how redistricting would be handled after the next census in 2020.

Any ruling is likely going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is already mulling a decision in another redistricting suit.

Pennsylvania has been there before. Back in 2004, a divided U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene in another gerrymandering case from the state.

We hope the court sees fit to remove politics from the redistricting process.

No elected official – neither Republican nor Democrat — should be “voter-proof.”