"Concern over this essentially corrupt practice has been rising,
and some states have been trying alternatives to redistricting-by-legislature.... Rigged elections here seem especially scandalous
today, as we preach to the Iraqis and others in the developing world the virtues of representative democracy and hold ourselves
up as the paragon of that virtue. It is high time we cleaned up our own house."
TomPaine.com Published: Nov 11 2003
Choosing Voters by Walter Cronkite (anchor of CBS Evening News for 19 years)
The recent redistricting of Texas, promoted and directed by Houston's congressman and House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay, reminds us that it is not just countries like Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan and Chechnya that rig their elections.
been doing it in this country ever since the Founding Fathers sought to assure that each congressional district would represent
as nearly as possible an equal number of citizens. They provided a census, to be taken every 10 years, as the basis on which
the districts could be realigned.
Unfortunately, they left to the states how those district lines would be redrawn.
The state legislators undertook the task and highly politicized it.
In Massachusetts, prior to the election of 1812,
the party in power was facing defeat when the governor, Elbridge Gerry, redrew districts to consolidate his party's strength
and weaken that of the opposition. A local newspaper editor thought one tortuously drawn district resembled a salamander and
coined the word used ever after to describe the product of partisan redistricting預 "gerrymander."
has been and is a bipartisan sin. If we single out Rep. DeLay and his Texas Republicans now, we can also indict California
Democrats who, at one time, created a district for one of their incumbents that had 385 sides.
The process perpetuates
the rule of the party in power by making its members' districts virtually uncontestable, in effect disenfranchising many voters
by making their votes meaningless.
In a recent update of his 1993 book, Real Choices/New Voices, political scientist
Douglas J. Amy says of gerrymandering that "instead of voters choosing their politicians, politicians actually choose their
In the 2000 election, Democrats in the state of Texas won 57 percent of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives,
though they received only 47 percent of the statewide vote. Now, the Republicans are retaliating謡ith a vengeance.
in cases where representation of racial minorities has been diluted, the courts traditionally have shied away from stepping
in. But the Supreme Court has said that the practice of redistricting has its constitutional limits. And though it hasn't
defined just where those limits are, Texas might be about to provoke a definition.
William E. Forbath, a professor
of constitutional law and constitutional history at the University of Texas, believes the gerrymandered district map just
approved by the Texas governor might trigger court action on several grounds. A likely one could be that Texas was redistricted
after the 2000 election, but the DeLay forces chose to shatter precedent and redistrict again, just three years later.
ground, says Forbath, is the blunt, one might say brazen, way they have advertised their purpose葉o safeguard more Republican
seats in Congress.
Concern over this essentially corrupt practice has been rising, and some states have been trying
alternatives to redistricting-by-legislature. Iowa has adopted an independent commission, with salutary results洋ore
competitive elections and more sensible, contiguous congressional districts.
Rigged elections here seem especially
scandalous today, as we preach to the Iraqis and others in the developing world the virtues of representative democracy and
hold ourselves up as the paragon of that virtue. It is high time we cleaned up our own house.
This site contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social
justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.