Erase Political Favoritism From Legislative Redistricting

It's no mystery why 42 state legislators and congressional representatives in Florida were re-elected without opposition this summer, and why many other incumbents are likely to breeze to new terms with only token opposition in the fall.

The politicians mapped it that way. It's the redistricting game.

After every 10-year U.S. census, state lawmakers in the controlling political party get to toy with congressional and state legislative districts with no regard for existing geographical boundaries or communities.

The purpose never changes: They want incumbents and their party to stay in power. And state and federal laws put up very few deterrents.

Voters are always the big losers. They often are deprived of competitive races and fresh ideas that can lead to meaningful policy changes and break legislative gridlock.

But a bipartisan group that includes Democrat Bob Graham, a former Florida governor and U.S. senator, and former state Comptroller Bob Milligan, a Republican, is working to bring some sanity - and, above all, fairness - to this seriously flawed process. The group's plan would change government representation for the better by prohibiting political favoritism in the mapping rooms.

FairDistrictsFlorida.org is collecting signatures to get two proposed state constitutional amendments on the 2010 general election ballot that would create new mandatory criteria for redistricting.

The proposed amendments - one each for state House and Senate seats and another for Congress - prohibit state lawmakers and their staff from drawing boundaries that "favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party."

That's the way the process should work, but it doesn't. The law doesn't prohibit gerrymandering and other political power grabs that result in districts that make no geographical sense whatsoever.

And considering computer technology gives parties extremely detailed information about voters and their voting habits, removing political favoritism from the process carries more urgency today than it did, say, 10 years ago.

In addition, the proposed amendments would require that districts be contiguous; as equal in population as feasible unless otherwise mandated; and, where possible, utilize existing city and county boundaries. Protections for minorities also would be included.

These are all much-needed improvements. Wedges should not be driven between communities, counties and voters, yet that's what politically driven redistricting does. For example, there is absolutely no rational reason the city of Temple Terrace is sliced into three congressional districts. It's absurd.

There are other ways to clean up the redistricting process. Some states have laws requiring that counties not be split up, and it's possible that fair districts could be drawn by following voting precinct boundaries.

But it is critical to remove selfish political motives from the process, which is the main goal of FairDistrictsFlorida, so voters can have more competitive races and a stronger say in government.

Under the proposals the Legislature still would be holding the pen, which is problematic. But the courts, which review redistricting plans in Florida, should be able to determine whether lawmakers are violating the requirements of the amendments and put a stop to it.

It could be that, with these mandatory criteria in place, the judiciary would take a much more critical look at the Legislature's plans. And that would be good.

Of course, the Legislature already has filed an objection to the amendments before the state Supreme Court, in essence arguing they invade lawmakers' turf and violate the single-subject rule, among other grounds. What a surprise. Voters shouldn't have any doubt now why the redistricting process needs to be overhauled.