|
I will be speaking with the Indianapolis Rotary Club at 12 p.m. today about the need to rethink the redistricting process in Indiana. You can watch my speech on the Indianapolis Star web site.
As Indiana's Chief Elections Officer, this issue is important to me because it affects the way elections are conducted across the state. We need to rethink redistricting because the current process works for the politicians - when it should work for the people.
Many Hoosiers are not familiar with the redistricting process because it only happens every 10 years, right after the census. Redistricting, simply put, is done by the legislature in order to keep our political borders up-to-date with the number of voters in each district. However, redistricting in Indiana is not so simple. It's done by lawmakers who have their own self interests in mind, and most of the districts are drawn up to be "safe" for one party or another.
For Indiana's redistricting process to result in districts that represent people, not politics, our lawmakers need clear parameters. Redistricting can be done better with a set of criteria that keeps political data out of the equation, keeps communities of interest together, and eliminates sprawling, oddly shaped districts while maintaining population balance. These criteria will help our legislators create districts that make sense:
Reducing voter confusion about who represents them by following already existing political boundaries such as county and township lines
Keeping communities of interest together
Geographic compactness
Nesting two State House districts under the existing lines of a State Senate district
Maintaining population balance
Not using any political data including incumbent addresses
This concept is called "Rethinking Redistricting," and my goal is to lead a discussion with Hoosiers about a better way to draw our legislative district lines. I encourage you to learn more about this concept and to get engaged in the discussion.
Visit the Rethinking Redistricting web site at http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe651c707365017c7616&ls=fdf117767263077f7c1c7074&m=fef2117470630c&l=fe99167075620c7d73&s=fe3710737361057c771670&jb=ffcf14&t=.
Message from Secretary Rokita
When it comes to redistricting - the process we go through every ten years to ensure our population is distributed fairly evenly between our various elected federal and state legislators - it is the threshold issue that determines how much your elected officials listen to you on all other issues, from health care to Daylight Savings Time. That's why as Indiana's Chief Elections Officer, I've started an important discussion to shed light on the way Hoosiers select officials to represent us today and tomorrow.
As we near the 2010 census, we also approach the next round of redistricting. Our Indiana constitution calls for the legislators themselves to re-draw the maps. They often use voter history data to skew the lines to keep their districts non-competitive or "safe" for themselves and fellow elected lawmakers. For decades, this process has benefited the legislators - not the voters. This all limits competition. And just like anything else, when you don't have good competition, and you don't get good (or any) candidates with good alternative ideas, then the voters and taxpayers lose out.
By "rethinking redistricting" we can come up with a better way to establish a fair and easily understood system for redrawing district lines. An effective redistricting plan should utilize the following criteria:
Prohibiting the use of political data
Maps created without using your voting history, that are not allowed to protect incumbents by considering where they live, will be inherently more fair and less likely to contribute to gerrymandering and other voter manipulation.
Keep communities of interest together
This seeks to avoid unnecessary division of voters who share the same communities, such as counties, townships and cities, or other geographic and socio-economic data. Such communities often have the same priorities, views and motivations.
Create more compact districts
br>The only criteria currently required of the General Assembly is that legislative districts be contiguous. This has created sprawling, meandering districts like the 4th Congressional District, which runs from Monticello to Bedford. Respecting existing political and geographic boundaries like counties and townships would create more logical districts. This would reduce voter confusion because existing boundaries would be associated with legislative boundaries.
Maintain population balance
Redistricting should be accomplished in a manner that balances population, ensuring a fair and equitable division of voters in each district. But it also doesn't have to be used as an excuse to draw otherwise arbitrary and confusing lines that really just create "safe," gerrymandered districts.
Nesting two house districts into every one senate district
This would result in even more accountability and further lessen confusion about who represents you. We can easily do this because in Indiana there are exactly two representatives for every one senator.
Hoosiers may not know why they should care about these proposed changes. The truth of the matter is that reforming this process is critical to effective and accountable representation on ALL the issues you would bring to federal and state legislators over the next decade. Since our current legislative maps were drawn in 2001, 40 percent of the races for Indiana's legislative districts were run without major party opposition. If legislators don't even have candidates challenging them, then the prospect of them listening to you is also diminished.
I'm asking all Hoosiers to start Rethinking Redistricting by visiting www.rethinkingredistricting.com and joining the conversation. There you can comment on the proposal and share your own ideas directly with the legislators who will be drawing the districts. You can have an active role in ensuring fair representation and a voice in a process that should be influenced by people, not politics.
Governor Mitch Daniels supports Rethinking Redistricting
"Todd Rokita and I have been talking about this initiative for a long time, and I am completely supportive of his actions to encourage citizen input into the process," said Governor Mitch Daniels.
"Let me be clear, it is the rightful prerogative of the legislature to draw political boundaries, but their duty is to draw those lines in the public, not political interest. Districts should make geographic, social, and economic sense, period, and Todd's model maps serve as examples. I look forward to signing a bill supported by leaders in both the Indiana House and Senate based on these principles that will create far more fair and responsible districts than today's," said Governor Daniels.
Legislators aren't exactly embracing Secretary of State Todd Rokita's proposal to remove politics from the process of drawing legislative maps, and it's sadly obvious why: It threatens their re-election chances. Why give up the tool that lets them maintain partisan majorities and safe seats for themselves and their cohorts?
It's the right thing to do; that's why. In 2010, the Census will give us updated population numbers upon which congressional and state legislative districts will be based. Under Rokita's plan, lawmakers would have to create compact districts that respect county, township and municipal boundaries and deviate only when necessary to meet requirements like one-man, one-vote. No more salamander-shaped districts that defy logic and geography. The plan, unveiled Sept. 8 in an address to the Indianapolis Rotary Club, would prohibit consideration of incumbents' addresses and party voting histories.
The only thing "radical" about Rokita's plan is a provision that would make it a felony to take politics into account. Rokita admits he put that language in as an attention-grabber. Change the penalty to a misdemeanor and opposition should fade away. Yet lawmakers have come up with all sorts of other reasons to grumble.
Perhaps the silliest: It's not his business. Of course it is. Any Hoosier registered to vote has a stake in the drawing of political districts. If the districts are rigged to ensure a certain outcome, the right to vote is diminished. As secretary of state, Rokita is the state's chief elections officer, responsible for overseeing elections and voter eligibility laws. His expertise in these areas makes him well suited to champion reform.
Objection No. 2: Drawing boundaries is a legislative function under the state Constitution. No argument there, and Rokita hasn't suggested otherwise. Under his plan, the legislative branch retains full control over the process. This is in sharp contrast to another plan being tried in California and elsewhere: the establishment of independent commissions to draw lines. While this idea has merit, it moves accountability further from the citizens. With legislators in charge of the process, voters know exactly whom to blame. You'd think legislators would prefer Rokita's plan for this reason.
Complaint No. 3: Rokita's plan is a lazy way to draw lines. This statement was made by Senate President Pro Tem and fellow Republican David Long of Fort Wayne. Perhaps Long meant to use the word "easier." Yes, it's easier to use politically neutral criteria than political ones. And it's far more practical. To the extent possible, Rokita's plan would rely on computer software to do the actual design work. "This is a very algorithmic process," Rokita said. Humans would still play a role to make sure the maps conform to laws and court rulings about minority voting rights, among other issues.
One more complaint, this one leveled by political bloggers with too much time on their hands: Rokita misused his office by spending $110,000 to hire a firm to draw sample maps and to set up a Web site, www.rethinkingredistricting.com, where voters can learn about the issue and submit their own ideas. This is money well spent. Research is an essential step in policymaking. You can bet the White House has spent gobs on its health-care reform initiative. Rokita's maps demolish the argument that compact and politically neutral maps just can't be drawn. "I proved that this could be done," he said. Public understanding and input are essential to get his proposal through the legislature.
There may be better plans than Rokita's. Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, has pushed the idea of a bipartisan commission that would be appointed by legislative leaders. Common Cause of Indiana has suggested letting the Legislative Services Agency, the non-political arm of the legislature, do the job. The legislature should look at all the options but mustn't abdicate responsibility to clean up the process.
Rokita is right when he says redistricting is the threshold issue that determines whether a citizen is part of the process or whether his voice is artificially silenced. The ball is in the legislature's court.
Have a comment? Send it here:
| 
