(Note: this blog post stems from a series of related articles published weekly in the Daily Court Review.)
This is the last column in our series on redistricting. We have assessed and discussed the process – from Congressional districts to city and county representation. Now that you understand the process, let’s discuss the outcomes and the effect of redistricting on democracy.
My first experience with redistricting was in 1981. As a legislative staff member, I was charged with working on a team to make sure our community had strong representation. I followed several people and participated in drawing the district lines on big maps and boxes of colored pencils, based on results generated from expert analysis of the census data.
By 1991, computers had entered the redistricting process and everything changed. Anyone could move lines with a simple click of a mouse. The maps were so detailed and full of data that we could move a line just a tad and completely change the make-up of a district. Imagine a Democratic legislator saying, "Move that block. It had too many Republicans." Whereas a Republican legislator might say, "Move that apartment complex into the next district".
This change created the ability to draw districts with more significant partisan alignment. Over the last 20 years, this leverage has continued to increase. As computers have become more and more sophisticated, our districts have become more and more polarized. The bottom line is that most of the Congressional, State Representative and State Senate districts are drawn to elect either a Democrat or a Republican. There are districts designed to elect target minority communities. Just to be clear though, we don’t "pack" minorities in districts – we just make sure that a majority of residents in a specific area match criteria.
Click here to read more.