Sullivan: Redistricting procedures should be more transparent

This past Election Day was a Republican day; calling it a “wave election” is completely… This past Election Day was a Republican day; calling it a “wave election” is completely reasonable. Mountains of pages have been written over the last few weeks about the politics of the next two years: How will President Barack Obama be able to work with the newly Republican House of Representatives? How will the dynamic of the Republican Party change as it is forced to govern?

But if the House takeover was the Republican wave, there’s a serious undertow that few are considering. Two Tuesdays ago, Republicans gained control of 19 state legislative bodies, bringing their total to 55 of 99. Indeed, here in Pennsylvania, the very greatest state of the Union, they finally gained control of the state House. Along with the already-red Senate and with Governor-elect Tom Corbett, this gives the GOP complete control of the state government.

This newly solidified governmental authority comes at an important juncture and could hold national importance — and not only for the short term. It’s decennial redistricting time. Once the results of the 2010 U.S. Census are in, states will be responsible for redrawing the lines of their congressional districts to reflect changes in population. For example, Pennsylvania is projected to lose a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it will be up to the state’s now-Republican ruling bodies to decide which seat that is.

The lost seat isn’t the only repercussion. Lines will have to be moved, and this could easily affect the 2012 election, specifically in swing districts. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., who represents District 4, the large and oddly shaped region to the north of Pittsburgh, won only 51 percent of the vote on Election Day. Only a little less blue and a little more red within his district’s lines and, well, it won’t be his district anymore.

But what truly makes this dangerous is the fact that redistricting is as opaque a process as any in government. And because of this, whoever is in control of the process — Democrat or Republican — is free to change the line as will best benefit their party without fear of being held accountable. This practice is known as gerrymandering, one of those ridiculous terms that disguises, through silliness, the malignant nature of the process. And yes, there’s a story behind the term, but it’s not that interesting.

According to Newsweek, there are two types of gerrymandering: packing and cracking. Packing is the practice of lumping a large group of minorities — race, class or party — into a single district, thereby securing a larger number of districts for the majority party. This type of redistricting favors the election of increasingly partisan candidates. And if I learned anything from the last two years of congressional morass, it is that partisanship is the greatest threat to governance — but perhaps not government — we have encountered in recent history.

Cracking works in the opposite way. Minority-concentrated areas, such as Austin, Texas, are split among several districts, insuring that minorities are too small to elect candidates of their own. Although this does allow for more moderate candidates in some cases, cracking is the scythe of disenfranchisement. Over the long term, it drives down participation in the voting process among minorities, who see their candidates lose year after year.

Despite all this, there are myriad hypothetical ways to fix this process ranging from the plausible to the far-fetched: multi-seat districts, at-large representatives or perhaps armed revolution.

But the first attempt we must make is an effort toward transparency and participatory democracy. The volume of demographic data it takes to complete a redistricting plan is immense, but it is rarely made both accessible and understandable for average Americans. Bringing this information into the public light, as well as requiring the software used to analyze the information to be open-source, will give voters a chance to view any plan objectively and let their opinions be known. There should also be a provision that requires the redistricting committee to assess publicly submitted plans. I certainly will never attempt to create a plan of my own, but there are a ton of people out there who would find the algorithms interesting, and frankly, they’re probably more qualified than state Representatives to tease out what’s equitable.

Diffusion of this information by the media and interest groups will be integral to a truly transparent redistricting process, political science professor Kristin Kanthak said. Like any other policy initiative, the minutiae involved can take your breath away, and we must have a well-versed group of people who can translate the damned thing into layman’s terms.

Above all, there must be revision and greater detail on the list of attributes that define the ideal district. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the current Pennsylvania list includes “compactness” and “contiguity” but doesn’t prohibit “protecting incumbents.”

Ten years of congressional districts should not be decided by a small group of representatives from either party. We elect our representatives, but we cannot allow them to force our hands in the future by making our votes not matter, or our candidate not matter. We need a transparent government.

Write Brendan at b.james.sullivan@gmail.com.