Earlier this month, I asked Hoosiers to become more aware of the political redistricting process that will take place after the 2010 census, to consider alternative methods of redistricting including my own ideas, and to become part of a discussion. Unfortunately, in a column in last week’s Recorder, Amos Brown jumped to conclusions about the intentions and motives of our “Rethinking Redistricting” campaign, and in doing so made false, ugly accusations about me and others in state government.
Mr. Brown is right that redistricting is a “complicated, cumbersome process.” Mr. Brown is also correct that computers made the process easier, but they in fact make it even easier for politicians to choose who their voters are, rather than the voters choosing who serves them.
But Mr. Brown needs to do more research or get some better legal advice before commenting on other aspects of redistricting. He states that “under Indiana law, [congressional and state legislative boundaries], can’t split precincts.” There’s no such law. The fact of the matter is that the legislature can split existing precincts during redistricting, whether that is necessarily a good idea or not. The current congressional district plan adopted in 2001 split a precinct (Center 4 in Howard County). Likewise, State House District 66 split a precinct in Jennings County. There are other examples.
Mr. Brown should also look for additional guidance before attempting to characterize the numerous decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court (and others) detailing what factors can or must be used on drawing district lines.
In Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that although taking race into account when redistricting is not always unconstitutional, if race was the legislature’s dominant motive in drawing district lines, then the redistricting plan could violate the Equal Protection Clause, and be unconstitutional as a “racial gerrymander.”
In Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court scrutinized the 12th Congressional District in North Carolina, which has been described as “one of the most egregious racial gerrymanders ever drawn: stretching 160 miles across the state, for much of its length no wider than the I-85 freeway, but reaching out to pick up pockets of African Americans all along the way.”
Gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of the motives behind it. Legislative districts should be drawn not to benefit or protect incumbents of any race, but to provide all voters with Equal Protection under the Constitution.
If the examples of redistricting plans I’ve presented had used racial data as a primary or dominant factor, perhaps Mr. Brown would have objected just as strongly that they were “racial gerrymanders.”
Instead, the examples were designed to show that it would have been possible at the beginning of this decade to draw district lines that are compact and respect the boundaries of “communities of interest” while continuing to balance population within the limits allowed by the courts.
These examples used actual numbers from the last census in 2000, not “estimates” or an educated guess about what the census in 2010 will show. No one knows yet exactly what the census will show regarding where racial and ethnic minorities will be living next year. The 2000 census figures are the most valid, accurate and complete data to use in illustrating how redistricting could be conducted if political factors were removed from the process. I’m well aware of the very important issues of packing or splitting minority populations and understand that the maps that will be drawn by the General Assembly with 2010 census data will need to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
The examples I’ve presented are just that, examples. To the extent that they have sparked discussions about redistricting and made voters think about the importance of this topic, they have already proven successful.
Todd Rokita
Indiana Secretary of State
