Thursday, March 2, 2006 | 7:19 a.m.
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, lost his position as House majority leader after being charged in state court with money laundering. The charge was related to his fundraising in 2002 for Republican candidates to the Texas Legislature. With his monetary help, both houses of the Legislature came under the control of the Republicans.
After they took office in 2003, the Republicans, at the instigation of DeLay, approved new boundaries for Texas congressional districts. Surprise, surprise. Most of the new districts were home to a majority of Republican voters, assuring a rout in the 2004 elections. Sure enough, the slim Democratic majority, 17-15, was transformed into a 21-11 Republican majority.
The main purpose of redrawing congressional districts is to ensure that each district is roughly equal in population. This is why redistricting, if necessary, generally follows the publication of new census figures every 10 years.
New districts, ideally, should be drawn by legislatures whose members agree that the process should be fair to both the Democratic and Republican parties. This would guarantee that the political balance is not ridiculously skewed to create "safe seats" that could last for decades. Unfortunately, that has rarely been the case throughout much of our history. Partisan politics invariably enters the process, and controlling parties are known for gerrymandering. But few have ever been so blatantly partisan as they were in 2003 in Texas.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments about whether to keep or overturn the new congressional districts in Texas. We believe an order to overturn would be a signal to all gerrymanderers everywhere. Everyone going to the polls should believe, accurately, that their vote will count. Maybe if more people believed this, the country would see stronger turnouts at elections.
archive
