TEXAS VIEW: Shift redistricting to bipartisan panel

Redistricting is too important to leave to the politicians, to rephrase Georges Clemenceau’s well-worn adage about war and generals, and for that reason we have long supported taking redistricting out of the Legislature’s hands and putting it in the hands of an independent, bipartisan commission.

Texas legislators of both parties have a history of overreaching on redistricting and creating a costly court mess for taxpayers. An independent commission wouldn’t result in perfect districts, but we think it would draw districts that are more competitive and better able to withstand legal scrutiny.

State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican whose San Antonio-based district includes part of South Austin, biennially rides the redistricting commission hobbyhorse during legislative sessions. Three times — in 2005, 2007 and 2011 — the Texas Senate passed his proposal to create an eight-member independent, bipartisan commission to draw new congressional districts.

Wentworth’s plan lets Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature choose the commission’s members but excludes elected and party officials and lobbyists from serving on the commission.

Next session will be the time for the House to embrace the idea of an independent commission and join the Senate in passing a bill forming one.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census. In Texas, legislators draw new congressional, legislative and State Board of Education boundaries to reflect changes in the state’s population. The party in power creates districts that favor incumbents. In fact, protecting incumbents is such an overriding redistricting concern that it has led to an old joke: You used to choose your representative, now your representative chooses you.

The process produces few competitive districts. It’s also divisive and ends up costing Texas taxpayers millions of dollars when the Legislature’s maps end up in court.

Texas’ population increased by 4.3 million people from 2000 to 2010, and Hispanics and other minorities accounted for most of the increase. While the state gained four new congressional seats after the 2010 census (from 32 to 36), the Legislature did not increase the number of districts in which minority voters could potentially choose a minority representative.

Predictably, the Legislature’s maps ended up in court. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., began hearing testimony in a trial to determine whether the Legislature’s maps violate the Voting Rights Act (because it has a history of discrimination, Texas must win federal approval before its new maps can take effect). If the court says yes, then interim maps drawn by another three-judge panel in San Antonio will take effect.

But the fate of the interim maps is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. All this court action has forced the state to push its primary from March 6 to April 3, and it’s possible the primary will be pushed back even later.

Ideally, a congressional or legislative district should follow natural boundaries — city limits, county lines, neighborhoods, major roads or the courses of rivers — and be drawn as compactly as possible. Odd appendages on otherwise rationally shaped districts occasionally would exist if drawn by an independent commission, but gone would be the ridiculously gerrymandered districts that resemble barbells or a Jackson Pollock paint splatter.

Putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission will not push the courts entirely out of the picture. Thirteen states use some version of a redistricting commission and the results have been mixed. For example, Republicans and Latino voters challenged the maps drawn by a 14-member citizens’ commission in California because they thought they created too many districts favoring Democrats and too few placing Latinos in the majority.

Similarly, Republicans in Arizona complained about the maps drawn by that state’s five-person commission. Gov. Jan Brewer tried to remove the commission’s chairwoman but the Arizona Supreme Court overruled Brewer and reinstated the chairwoman.

Despite the disputes, the commissions in California and Arizona have been credited with creating more competitive districts. Incumbency, especially by California’s commission, was ignored.

Whatever its faults, an independent, bipartisan commission would be superior to letting legislators draw the state’s districts. They’ve messed up their chance far too many times. It’s time we put the process in someone else’s hands and try a method that lets us elect our representatives again.