A step against gerrymandering — but a small one and nothing more

Three ballot proposals seek to change how Colorado draws political boundaries for Congress and the General Assembly. Collectively, they should reduce gerrymandering by a little. But not much.

First, the good. The initiatives sweep away the current disaster. Two decades of Democratic gerrymandering should be enough. Democratic majorities gerrymandered state legislative districts, and Denver district court judges chose Democratic congressional maps.

Another good; the state legislative commission requires at least a little bipartisanship. A new map for the General Assembly will require at least one Republican or Democrat to cross the aisle. That’s much better than in the past. Unfortunately, the new Congressional commission voting rules don’t require any bipartisanship.

But there’s plenty of bad. Standards for drawing maps are a dream come true for map manipulators. The corrupt “community of interest” standard — or communities or regions with common attributes — remains for state legislative map drawing, and the congressional commission can use it to override any other standard. Want to gerrymander a map? Just go discover a “community of interest” to justify your partisan desires.

For example, in 2001 the Mayor of Boulder rode his bicycle everywhere (to help stop global warming), took few showers (to conserve precious water) and made his own clothes (to keep icky chemicals out of our ecosystem). Well, I made up that last one. But for redistricting, this hardcore tree-hugger suddenly loved himself some internal combustion engines traveling between downtown Boul- der and Longmont on a four-lane strip of concrete. To him, that highway was a critical “community of interest” — far more important than the Boulder central business district. And Democrats used this “community” to dilute Longmont’s Republican votes and create a new, Democratic seat. The Colorado Supreme Court approved it.

More recently, bugs formed an overriding “community of interest” in our current congressional map. Beetles eat a lot of Colorado’s forests, so Boulder and Fort Collins were put in the same Congressional district. To be sure, we all feel bad about beetle kill. But the good folk in Wellington and Lafayette would be surprised to learn that their most important political “community of interest” is beetle kill forests in Grand County.

The “political competitiveness” fetish is another corrupt standard. But competition is as American as it gets! And even partisans love competition — when it messes with the other side’s districts while keeping theirs safe. If you can make a lot of their districts competitive, and they can only make a few of your districts competitive, then you win! Your map has more competitive seats! They just happen to target the other political party, but someone has to sacrifice a little.

Want to stop gerrymandering abuse? Use objective standards based on existing cities and counties. That’s what the Colorado Supreme Court did — at least a little — over the last two rounds of legislative map-making. Other standards just invite partisan manipulation.

Now for the ugly. The new commissions obsess over “independent” commissioners. Independents don’t formally affiliate with political parties, but they almost always favor one party over another. Witness last cycle, when a so-called “in- dependent” commissioner voted in lockstep with Democrats to gerrymander our state seats. And for those commissioners who approach true independence, mapmaking becomes a game of capture the flag. Which party can best capture “independents” and bring them over to their side? Every map should require meaningful bipartisan support, regardless of independents. The state commission does this a little. The congressional commission doesn’t.

Next, nonpartisan legislative staff gets a lot of power to create initial maps and the default maps when commissioners can’t agree. Mapmakers have routinely ignored legislative staff in the past, so we don’t know how ugly this might get. But it’s gonna be ugly. Even the most well-intentioned staff has to grapple with the mushy standards that invite manipulation and destroy credibility.

Finally, the Colorado Supreme Court, which has a mixed record. Over two decades of state redistricting, bare majorities reduced gerrymanders in one legislative chamber while allowing the other gerrymander to go forward. Sadly, individual justices are not above reproach. In 2001, the chief justice consulted with Democratic leaders and appointed a Democratic commission majority. Yes, the buck has to stop somewhere, but clear standards need to constrain and guide the court.

Back in the 1970s, the League of Women Voters ran a ballot initiative that created our current, lousy system. Now they are back. Their proposals fix a few mistakes, but have far too many flaws to inspire confidence.

Scott Gessler is the former Colorado Secretary of State and a Denver attorney.