Draw the line on states' redistricting efforts

Even informed, involved citizens who may vote regularly and contribute to political candidates may not be aware of the impact of redistricting on politics and government.

And many state lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans alike — are perfectly satisfied to keep voters in the dark. Redistricting can assure an incumbent's political future or doom him to defeat. Legal questions about this political deck-stacking have become so pronounced that they have reached the Supreme Court.

Last week, the court heard arguments involving the redistricting effort in Pennsylvania. States are required to redraw districts every 10 years in order to ensure that all voters have equal representation. The Pennsylvania legislature, which is majority Republican, redrew districts with little regard for community boundaries, county lines, interstate highways or rivers. The result: In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 500,000, the congressional delegation went from 11-10 Republican advantage in 2000 to a 12-7 Republican delegation in 2002. Democratic legislators challenged the new map as being unconstitutional.

The courts traditionally have given state legislatures wide latitude in carving out new congressional districts. The Supreme Court previously has allowed states to use politics and incumbent protection as criteria in drawing political maps. It has also said, however, that gerrymandering can be unconstitutional if it prohibits a group of voters from participation.

http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/archives/03/12/44314789.shtml?Element_ID=44314789