The Supreme Court has ruled that on-demand redistricting is perfectly legitimate. The case centered on Texas’s redistricting efforts, in which the state legislature re-drew the state’s congressional districts to ensure a majority of Republicans won seats. This is a poor decision for what the court did not say, the courts have opened a political Pandora ’s Box. From this point on, states will constantly re-draw districts, each trying to out gerrymander the other with every change in political leadership. There can be no doubt that Democrats will re-draw GOP leaning districts in states where they command a majority and the GOP will do likewise.
While there is nothing inherently un-constitutional about redrawing congressional districts more frequently than the regular ten year intervals which have become customary, there is something inherently unsavory about using factors beyond population for re-districting.
Across this country, hack politicians in corrupt state legislatures use age, race, religion, income, education, party affiliation, voting patterns and other demographics to gerrymander the most advantageous congressional maps. Such barometers should be soundly rejected by the courts in favor of one simple formula: population.
Congressional districts should be drawn based solely on population, efforts should also be made not to bifurcate communities, counties and cities for the purposes of political expedience, which is characteristic of Iowa’s re-districting policies. Under such a plan, politicians would be forced to compete in elections based upon the merits of their work and ideas, rather than the sheep like nature of an uninformed electorate.
Gerrymandering is a disservice to all who favor genuine representative government. As long as demographic studies can be used to shape congressional districts, the inevitable result is gerrymandering, especial when such decisions are rendered by partisan politicians. Such districts violate the equal protection clause within the 14th amendment as certain groups will inevitably be deprived of representation under gerrymandering.
In a non-descript, population centered scenario, the only certainty is chance, ensuring a fairer electoral process.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has frequently upheld the constitutionality of gerrymandering in many respects, virtually guaranteeing that true electoral reform will remain elusive.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0629/p01s01-usju.html
