Not quite, Jon. Dull campaign-finance reformers at least get to talk about big piles of sweaty money. If you really want to bore the public with an issue vital to our democracy, try convincing them to pay attention to legislative redistricting. The partisan deal-making circus that occurs after every national census doesn't include sex, drugs, bloodshed or cash (that we know of, anyway), which means most of you, including the few who'll bother to vote next November, aren't paying attention.
Too bad. It's a hilarious little story. For sheer absurdity, few things match watching Democrats and Republicans around the country trade "principled positions" on redistricting issues based solely on whether their party pulls the strings in a given state.
In North Carolina, for instance, we've watched Democrats carefully create district maps that make it tougher for Republicans to gain seats in the House and Senate. Naturally, the Republicans sued, claiming the maps violate a provision in the state constitution that requires counties be kept intact. The Dems respond that the no-split-counties rule was superceded long ago by Justice Department and federal court decisions, and is thus a "dead letter" that can safely be ignored. The state Supreme Court will hear the case next month. If the Democrats lose, look for them to appeal to the feds.
Meanwhile, in states where Republicans control the legislature -- Virginia and South Carolina come to mind -- it's Democrats who are suing after being shut out by Republican-drawn maps.
"It does get a bit funny," says Dr. Ted Arrington, chair of the political science department at UNC-Charlotte and a specialist in voting behavior who testifies regularly in redistricting cases. "Just last month I was an expert witness for the Republicans in South Carolina; they're making exactly the opposite argument that the Republicans here are making. Down there, it's the Democrats who are saying you have to keep counties together and the Republicans who say county boundaries really don't matter."
Welcome to the "principled" world of redistricting.
Yes, the state constitution makes a difference, at least enough to get the Supreme Court's attention. But what NC Republicans aren't telling you is that their alternative district map guarantees them the same domination of the House and Senate that the Democrats are trying to grab.
"Trust me, the Republicans have already done the math," says Arrington. "If they win in Supreme Court and the districts are drawn the way the Republicans are saying they have to be drawn, it's possible Republicans could win 60 percent of the seats while getting only 48 to 49 percent -- less than half -- of the total votes."
"You think they're doing this for the principle of not dividing counties?" he asks, laughing. "Come on. Give me a break."
"Redistricting is an absurdly political process," says Jesse Rutledge, associate director of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education, a group dedicated to improving the state's election system. "Politicians are choosing their voters instead of the other way around. It's the reverse of how democracy is supposed to work."
A system that allows candidates to create the very districts in which they run yields depressingly predictable results; in case you haven't heard, 23 incumbents in the 50-seat Senate and 48 in the 120-seat House face no opposition at all this year. That's double the number of uncontested races North Carolina saw in 2000.
"Less competitive races are a growing national trend," says Rob Ritchie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and Democracy. "Even in states where legislatures are split between the two parties, you typically see handshake deals that give each party a number of safe districts."
The problem has gotten worse with the development of sophisticated software that makes it easier for political consultants to analyze populations down to the level of individual streets. The solution, according to Ritchie, is for states to take the process out of the hands of legislators by creating independent redistricting commissions made up of Democratic, Republican and independent voters. A handful of states has already begun experimenting with that approach.
"Iowa and Arizona, for example, have redistricting commissions with clear criteria," Ritchie says. "It doesn't matter who draws the maps, since you can objectively measure which plan fits the criteria best."
Arizona voters forced legislators' hands with a statewide referendum approving an independent commission. That option isn't available here in North Carolina, so any proposal will have to first make it through the state legislature.
