Brian Goldman | Redistricting is ‘gerrymaddening’

There are a host of reasons why you might be fed up with the current state of politics. I won’t waste your time by exploring all of them, but there’s one going on right here in our backyard that’s worth mentioning …

That would be gerrymandering.

Gerry- what?

Gerrymandering. It’s a conventional nickname for the art of drawing state district lines in as ill-conceived a way as possible. District lines separate states into various areas that elect representatives. Every decade, when a new census is conducted, district lines are redrawn to reflect population shifts.

Understandably, it’s not an issue that is generally talked about outside of the political-junkie sect.

Like obesity, mosque building and everything in between, the drawing of district lines has been politicized in the U.S. However, it’s been a political issue since the days Benjamin Franklin roamed Penn’s campus.

District lines are constantly redrawn to advantage one political party over the other. The main source of contention is that the party in control of the state legislature is put in charge of redistricting.

The name “gerrymandering” was coined in 1812, when the districts in Massachusetts were drawn so convolutedly that they resembled salamanders. Not much has changed today.

Currently, the issue is being fought out in Harrisburg has the potential to delay Pennsylvania’s primaries, which are scheduled to take place on Apr. 24. It is an embarrassing feud that highlights political discord that we prefer to think exists only in Washington D.C. and Harrisburg, welcome to the club.

Upstate, the classic fight between Democrats and Republicans over how district lines are drawn is under way. Democrats are echoing the complaint that minority parties usually voice, saying that Republicans — the majority in the legislature — have drawn overtly partisan district lines.

Both the state Supreme Court and a federal district judge have deemed the proposed district lines so egregious that they must be thrown out. Instead, Pennsylvania must revert back to the 2001 lines for the 2012 electoral primaries.

It’s embarrassing that this fight is taking place so close to the filing deadline for prospective candidates. Tomorrow is the final day one can register to run for a federal position, while Feb. 16 is the deadline for state candidates.

Gerrymandering is not an issue that usually engages students, but there are few reasons why we need to mobilize around reform.

First, the battle does not break down along traditional partisan lines. Along with the Republican majority (those in favor of the newly proposed district boundaries) stand advocacy groups such as Latino Justice, who argue, rightfully so, that the 2001 lines do not adequately reflect the growing Latino population.

Second, the current fight is an indictment of the process here in Harrisburg. As it stands, the Legislative Reapportionment Commission is in charge of drawing up new district lines for state House and Senate elections.

Such commissions are usually created to take the political sting out of blatantly partisan issues. However, this commission is made up of five members, four being the House and Senate leaders of each party. It’s a politically created “commission” composed of the highest-ranking political officials in the state who are anything but independent.

The solution? As detailed in the remarkably revealing documentary Gerrymandering, the only conceivable way to make the process fair is to make it as independent as possible. This doesn’t mean that we should create a commission with a different name, staffed by backroom, old-boys-club politicians.

Rather, Pennsylvania needs to follow the lead of other states by creating a redistricting authority that is politically neutral. In California, legislators went to the heart of democracy, by creating a California Citizens Redistricting Commission that randomly selects individuals, out of a nominated group, to draw district lines.

Currently, districts are drawn like salamanders not simply because the politicians are acting like kindergartners with drawing pads. They’re drawn in such ways because they connect one party stronghold with another to the extent that individual votes matter less and less.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat, a Tea Partier or an Occupier. Often, the district lines, rather than your votes, determine whether a candidate is reelected. This is one of the reasons (along with financial advantages and name recognition) why incumbents are traditionally reelected to the House of Representatives at a 90 percent or higher clip.

We can diagnose the problem. The real question going forward is whether the political class will fill out a prescription to remedy it.

Brian Goldman is a College senior from Queens, N.Y. His email address is briangol@sas.upenn.edu. The Gold Standard appears every Monday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.