Top Stories Milwaukee

Nationally, states are beginning to consider how to redraw legislative districts to reflect the results of the 2010 census.  Common Cause of Wisconsin sharply criticizes this state for spending lots of tax money to draw districts that end up protecting incumbents. The group’s criticism is echoed by State Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee), a redistricting consultant.

In terms of procedure, the redrawing of Wisconsin’s state Senate and Assembly districts occurs no differently than any other legislation. Most of the work and negotiation happens outside of the public eye. Bills are introduced and scheduled for votes. But as a massive power struggle that unfolds once every decade in the state, redistricting is a different animal.

illustration by adrian palomo

Actually, legislators haven’t voluntarily reached an agreement on district boundaries since 1971. In each decade since, gridlock has forced redistricting into federal court. In 2001, the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled Assembly each hired a law firm (at public expense) and racked up legal fees totaling about $1 million in the slugfest.

Redistricting critics often raise the specter of contorted, snake-liked, “gerrymandered” voting districts designed to benefit incumbents and the party in power. About a dozen states rely on independent commissions to perform redistricting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A series of contentious hearings on redistricting kicked off in Texas earlier this week. Legislators in New York are debating the creation of a redistricting commission – as are those in Ohio.

Wisconsin isn’t the only state that’s grown tired of redistricting battles – and the fear that each time they happen, one party will succeed in tipping the balance of liberal or conservative districts too far in their favor. “It’s a charade,” says Jay Heck, executive director of the non-partisan Common Cause Wisconsin. “The legal bills are astronomical.”

A proposal that would leave redistricting in the Legislature’s hands but require lawmakers to craft more competitive districts died earlier this year. Kessler, who has worked as a private redistricting consultant, says he was unable to get Legislative leaders to schedule a vote on the resolution, which would have begun the process of amending the state constitution.

Wisconsin’s current system gives lawmakers a set of vague goals – draw boundaries that don’t divide “communities of interest” (areas such as the cities of Milwaukee or Waukesha that share similar concerns) and don’t split up and dilute minority voters (as required by the federal Voting Rights Act). Districts should be as close to each other in population as possible, compact and contiguous.

Kessler would throw most of those principles out the window while attempting to prevent diluting the votes of minority communities. His proposal is unique, nationally, for aggressively pursuing competitive districts.  It might even affect his own district on the city’s northwest side, which he admits has gotten “safer and safer” over the years.

“What do you want, attractive-looking districts or competitive elections?” he says. He blames the community of interest standard for polarizing state politics across the country. Legislators in bipartisan districts, he says, “are going to be compelled to straddle both concerns. You’re going to be the person looking for compromise.”

Kessler’s plan is would require that at least 20 Assembly districts and seven Senate districts be drawn so that the ratio of Democrats and Republicans is within 1 percent of the state average – as calculated by the number of votes cast in the last five gubernatorial and presidential elections. Kessler says that average will come close to a 50-50 split since Wisconsin is generally a competitive state.

Republicans in Wisconsin have opposed Kessler’s plan, saying legislators can better represent their constituents if their districts encompass communities of interest. Under the current districts, Kessler retorts, “There’s a slight bias toward the Republicans.”

Common Cause agrees that more competitive races are needed. It estimates there are only about 13 “truly competitive” legislative districts in the state. But it also wants an independent commission.

Although redistricting in Wisconsin inevitably lands in the courts, according to Heck, judges aren’t prepared to throw out the legislators’ work and start over. “All the courts do is take what the Legislature has done and tweak it a little bit. The courts are not going to radically change what comes before them,” he says.

It’s not clear how many changes to redistricting the Legislature can make without changing the state constitution, which requires passage in two separate legislative sessions and then approval in a statewide referendum held during a general election.

The redistricting process and implementing any changes this time around would have a deadline of June 1, 2012, when candidates would begin registering for the fall election, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. They need to know where their districts lie, after all.

The normally reserved agency notes in its guide to redistricting that the process is “inherently political … Political considerations, both of parties and of individuals, will underlie every decision made.” It stops short of recommending a nonpartisan commission but says such a board “might be able to implement redistricting principles better than a partisan legislature, but people who have strong party loyalties might fear their interests will not be well-served unless the Legislature has a hand in redistricting.”

Kessler insists that courts, legislators or independent commissioners need outcome-based rules like he’s proposing to be successful. Otherwise, “A commission standing alone is not going to do any better,” he says.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.