As long as our political system uses winner-take-all, single-seat districts, there will be an obvious need to reform the redistricting process. But the public interest, rather than narrow political interests, should drive redistricting. Which approaches hold the most promise?
Public Watchdog
Make the redistricting process a very public one, with full news media coverage and citizen input. Don't let redistricting happen behind closed doors, where incumbents can pay $20,000 in protection money to the people who draw the lines, to draw them a safe seat.
Public Interest Redistricting
At a minimum, the redistricting process must be taken out of the hands of the politicians and party leaders. Several states have adopted criteria-driven, independent redistricting commissions, which engage in a more public-interestoriented redistricting that offers examples of how to return the process to the public. Here are a few recent examples of public interest redistricting.
Washington. In the 1991-92 redistricting, Washington State used a nonpartisan, criteria-driven commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts, resulting in some of the nation' s most competitive U.S. House elections of the 1990s. Washington State had seven races during the 1990s that were decided by a margin of less than 5 percent; another eight contests resulted in a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. Congressional incumbents lost in five of the state' s nine districts during the decade, and the balance between the parties changed in every election.
Iowa. Iowa uses a three-step process to draw congressional and state legislative districts, involving civil servants, an independent commission, and the state legislature. The first step is directed by civil servants at the state Legislative Services Bureau, which is charged with coming up with three sets of