Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-California) has introduced HR 2173, which would require all states that have more than one member of the U.S. House to have independent redistricting commissions to draw U.S. House district boundaries. Here is the text of the bill. It has 27 co-sponsors so far, all of them Democrats.
The Commission in each state would have 12 members. Four would be members of the largest party, four would be members of the second-largest party, and four would be all other voters. The chair would be a member of the latter group. The commissions could not consider the voting history of any region of the state, nor the party registration data, when they draw the lines. Also they could not take into account the residence of any incumbent member of Congress.
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules this month or next month that states cannot have independent redistricting commissions established under state law, and that only the state legislatures can draw the boundaries, this bill would still be constitutional because the same part of the U.S. Constitution (Article One, section four) gives Congress the power to override state election laws concerning congressional elections. Thanks to the Brennan Center for this news.
It is procedurally flawed in that 7 members can approve a plan, with only one vote (of 4) from the minority group voting for the plan. Compare to California, where the commission had 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others, and the plan had to be approved by a concurrent majority of all three groups.
Since a failure to agree on a plan would place redistricting in the hands of a Washington, D.C. court, there would be pressure to just go along.
The random selection of members is likely to introduce biases, even when the selection pool is deliberately unbiased. For example, if a pool in California were divided 6:6 between Northern and Central California: and Southern California, 4 persons selected at random are likely to have a 3:1 or even a 4:0 distribution. In California, the randomly selected commissioners were able to choose additional members in order to produce balance.
It curiously permits non-contiguous districts in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
The deadlines are too tight. The commission must be chosen by June of the ‘0’ year, but can’t start working until January. In California, the definition of “communities of interest” was done concurrently with drawing the map. Those advocating for identification of a certain area at that time likely have ulterior motives. If there is an identifiable community of interest in 2021, it almost assuredly exists now. The plan must then be slapped together by August 15.
The so-called “other” members of the California commission were not really “independent” by any stretch of imagination. The bill does seem to have flaws in reference to non-contiguous districts. Logically, you’d think it pretty simple to just pick one corner of a state and proceed from there ignoring population demographics, party registration and the like. You could get districts balanced in population that are compact, contiguous areas using a computer. But then, maybe the fight would then be over who gets to pick the people who program the computer!
California had a commission with 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 4 others. I didn’t say that they were independents. It is true that at least a couple of the others were probably to the left of the Democratic Party.
But what was critical was that the final map required votes of 3 of 5 Republicans, 3 of 5 Democrats, and 3 of 4 others. In addition, if a decision could not be made, it was left to special masters appointed by the California Supreme Court.
Compare this to what happened in Arizona where there were 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and one “independent”, and decisions only required a 3:2 majority.
Under the Lofgren plan, you only have to get one of four votes from one of the parties.
P.R. in all legislative bodies before it is too late.