Take power-hungry politicians out of redistricting process
There are very few sure things in politics because the public mood can shift in a hurry.
In 1993, Mike Turner, now a member of the U.S. House, stunned Democrat Clay Dixon and won the Dayton Mayor’s seat. Barack Obama trailed John McCain and Mitt Romney late in his campaigns and won. The Tea Party obliterated Democrats in U.S. House races in 2010.
In this cycle, three things seem clear. Donald Trump currently has a slight edge in the White House race. Republicans are favored to flip the Senate. And Democrats have a shot at retaking the House because of redistricting, which “could hypothetically be the determining factor as to which side wins,” Kyle Kondik said.
Kondik serves as managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, one of the country’s preeminent political analysis and handicapping newsletters based at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
This election cycle shows why all states should follow the lead of California, Colorado, Arizona and the 15 others who have created independent commissions to draw fair maps. In November, Ohio citizens — who have twice demanded an end to gerrymandering and have been ignored by Republican power brokers — have a chance to join that club and strip redistricting responsibility from lawmakers.
Politicians, as we know, only care about their power. But now, in many states, Republicans and Democrats have sued over which maps should be implemented, leaving courts to decide. The vote is supposed to be the determining factor in who gets elected, but that’s been compromised by both parties seeking to tilt maps in their favor.
Since both sides refuse to play fair, jurists will have an outsized role in the map-making process, meaning voters become secondary.
Looking ahead to November, “the bottom line is that neither side is over 218,” the majority when all 435 House members are seated, Kondik said. “In our readings, Republicans are closer, but I’d characterize the race for the House as basically a tossup,” he said.
The House outlook depends on how many seats Democrats
can gerrymander to their advantage and take away seats from Republicans. Democrats could pick up seats in red Louisiana and Alabama. And new maps in Wisconsin have emboldened Democrats who believe they can flip seats there, too.
New York just ended its redistricting fight with modest gains for Democrats, while court cases in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida could also help them.
Conversely, the North Carolina GOP created partisan maps that should ensure it doesn’t lose any seats.
This is exactly what’s wrong with politics. We should pick our representatives based on their competence and ideas, not whether they’ve been gerrymandered into a D- or R-leaning district with little competition.
But that’s where we are. Ohio voters have already said — twice at the ballot box — they’re sick of partisan power plays and they want fairly drawn maps. Since Republicans refuse to do that, it’s time to take them, and all politicians, out of the process.
In the meantime, a consequential election that could see the House flip has more to do with redistricting and what the courts decide than what the voters think. Sure, citizens will cast their ballots, but they’re voting in inherently unfair districts skewed to the advantage of the party in power.
That’s wrong. We should have fair districts. Anything less is an affront to the democratic process.