Should state legislative districts been drawn by independent commissions?

[muon2]

Given the easy access to the internet and familiarity with software like Google Maps, I think we can do better than just a commission. A commission should provide the public with data and mapping tools as some states have done. The commission should also provide the public with clear criteria about how a map should be judged before the data is released, since too often the criteria emerge afterward to justify the map that was produced. Then the commission should solicit maps from the public and based on their own previously released criteria select the map from the submissions.

[muon2]

How big are state house seats in some states? In Michigan they are 77 to 92k each at this size it seems like you can't really gerrymander that much especially if there are rules like compactness and keeping cities and townships together. The state senate here is closer to around 260k and there are a lot more chances to gerrymander. Plus with state house districts that small you could actually talk to a lot of people in the district and win a district that leans the other way. Our state rep himself knocked on our door and my mom chatted for 10-12 minutes with him.

There are probably about 33K households in a typical MI state house seat. If a representative spends 20 hours a week knocking on doors for half the year (assume session for the other half) and 10 minutes per household then they will get to only 1 in ten of the houses they represent in a year. And that's a lot of time going door-to-door and not working on other district activities.

We've did some analysis on MI-styled rules over on the other board, and it's surprising how well one can still gerrymander with only those constraints (compactness isn't a very strong rule in MI). It's enough that the legislature could stay R even through the 2012 presidential year.

[muon2]

I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.

For those who want to take away the process of individual legislators using their power within the legislative body to suit their personal interests, it succeeds. For those who want to maintain control by the legislative body, it does that, too.

It's actually quite similar to the normal legislative process by which a state creates a task force to study a subject and report back with specific recommendations. The details of the report are not driven by the legislature except through the statutory criteria established to charge the task force. The decision to implement any of the recommendations then returns to the elected body for an up or down vote.

[muon2]

I response to the recent posts, I continue to assert that the best model has the legislature write the criteria by which districts are drawn, then turn the process over to an independent body to execute the criteria and produce a set of different plans consistent with the criteria. Finally the legislature is given the final decision on which of the independent plans are adopted.

I think that's a very reasonable compromise. However, my biggest concern would be with the criteria being set by the legislature. For example, what would prevent a legislature from requiring that two incumbents cannot be placed in the same district? I think allowing the legislature to set criteria grants too much deference. Deference to the legislature has effectively ruined Florida's redistricting reform.

If you're talking about something closer to Iowa's setup, I would have a very hard time opposing it. As I understand it, election and incumbent data is barred from consideration. I think those are absolute requirements for a fair redistricting scheme.

My suggestion is more like IA than FL. The FL plan was drawn by the legislature under the guidance of their law and the result was not unlike MI which did the same thing starting in the 2000 cycle. It is interesting to note that the MI criteria in 2000 and 2010 were the same ones used from 1970-1990, but back then they were in the hands of an independent mapper due to the divided government at the time. Only when they passed to legislative mappers did the power to gerrymander even with the statutes become apparent.

The issue of whether or not political criteria should be considered is debated and different states creating independent commissions have turned up on different sides of the issue. Most would agree that criteria that are based on individual candidates should not be used. That sentiment isn't as true when one wants to test a plan for partisan fairness or responsiveness to electoral swings through a reasonable number of competitive districts. AZ explicitly includes political data to make those tests, but CA excludes that data. I contend that intelligent mappers and map readers will know the general political impact of a plan, even if the data isn't there to confirm it, so why not put the information out there for all to see.