Town and Country Newspaper

News Article

That Doesn’t Make it Right

Written by Larry Roeder
2012-07-12

Redistricting - that pesky task that needs to be done every decade after the U.S. Census is completed. State legislators are required to account for the shifts in population by redrawing the district map to ensure, among other things, that each district contains relatively the same amount of people and follow the U.S. court’s one-man, one-vote rule.

They do so by appointing two high-ranking Democrats and two high-ranking Republicans. There is a fifth member appointed to their commission, which usually ends up being a judge (since we don’t want a majority of one party or the other to unbalance the vote).

The process is usually tainted with a bit of partisanship as the in-party strays a line or two (or three, etc.) that might favor a particular incumbent in a district, strengthen the in-party or weaken the out-party. By in-party and out-party we’re speaking of which party controls the state House.

Back in January the plan that the commission came up with and the state House approved was challenged. In February the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania weighed in and rejected the redistricting approved plan; the first time the court has rejected a redistricting plan since the modern system was adopted in 1968. It was rejected because it split towns, municipalities and counties into too many congressional districts. So back to the drawing board the five-menber commission went.

A newly revised map was drawn up by the commission and approved by the state House members in June. There were still some lines that didn’t please everybody. Unopposed, those new lines would take effect in 2014.

On Monday, the last day to file a challenge against the new redistricting map some Montgomery County Democratic officials filed a challenge to the latest redistricting of the legislative boundaries. They include Montgomery County Commissioner Chairman Josh Shapiro, Commissioner Leslie Richards and others. And they may have a valid argument. The state Supreme Court will be called upon, again, to vet the arguments and make a decision. This time there’s no rush because voters are committed to the 2014 timeline.

In an earlier editorial, we opined that there is a need to develop a better way of redistricting. There were many computer models introduced last year and ignored by most government officials. They were great for presenting “what-if” scenarios in the media. This is 2012 and government officials should embrace technology whenever it can help them better their jobs or decisions.

For officials determined to leave the system “as-is” voters should demand a change that would force the maps to be completed and approved by Oct. 31 of the redistricting year. In fact, officials should implement that deadline themselves and show that they are serious about improving the redistricting process.

As we wrote before, we’re all for diversity in districts and we understand the political party that controls the General Assembly usually cuts the paths to the benefit of that party in hopes of increasing the electability of their candidates. Republican or Democrat, over the years the ruling party was always guilty of drawing the map with similar bias towards their support strongholds.

But that doesn’t make it right.

Return to Previous Page