Redrawing Rules and Boundaries

More than a year after a bitter showdown in Texas, Republicans and Democrats are battling elsewhere over the drawing of congressional district lines. And the renewed confrontation could help fuel the drive for redistricting reform in other states, including California.

The latest clash has been triggered by the Republican-controlled state legislature in Georgia, which is about to toss out the congressional districts approved in 2001 and impose a new map that could help the GOP win more U.S. House seats in the state.

When the legislature completes the new map -- possibly as soon as next week -- it will further shred the tradition that states draw such district boundaries only once each decade. And that could ignite a significant escalation in the battle over redistricting.

Democrats are threatening to respond to the Georgia move by seeking to redraft maps more favorable for their party in states where they control the legislature and the governorship, such as Illinois.

“When Texas did it, we looked at it and didn’t move on it,” said John Cullerton, a Democratic leader in the Illinois state Senate. “But now with Georgia, I sure think it might change the attitude here. As [former Sen.] Paul Simon [D-Ill.] said, you can’t play touch football when the other guy is playing tackle.”

Such an upsurge in partisan conflict over redistricting, in turn, could provide momentum for efforts to shift control over the process from elected officials to nonpartisan panels. That idea is moving up the agenda in two of the nation’s most populous states, with Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger advancing it in California and Democrats promoting it in Florida.

Schwarzenegger is pushing for passage of a bill that would have three retired judges redraw the state’s political boundaries in time for the 2006 elections. While the current lines heavily favor incumbents, the judges would strive for political competitiveness in their map.

Although not required by law in most states, the informal prohibition against redistricting more than once a decade has been one of the most durable rules in U.S. politics. States have almost always drawn the lines for congressional and state legislative districts only after the decennial census, which triggers the reapportionment of U.S. House seats based on population shifts.

Practical and partisan arguments have discouraged states from redrawing political boundaries more frequently.

The temptation to do so typically arises when a party gains control of a state legislature and governorship after the maps have been drawn. But politicians long have been reluctant to press that advantage because of fears that the other side could retaliate if control shifted again before the next census, producing confusion for legislators and voters alike.

In 2003, Republicans broke that tradition in Texas and Colorado. In both states, divided control of the state legislatures after the 2000 census initially produced deadlocks that forced courts to draw the maps. But Republicans gained unified control of the states’ governments in the 2002 elections and responded by drawing new congressional maps that strengthened their prospects.

In Colorado, the state Supreme Court struck down the new lines, ruling that the state constitution barred more than one redistricting a decade.

But in Texas, Republicans working closely with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) passed their plan after a prolonged confrontation that saw Democratic lawmakers temporarily flee the state to prevent the vote. After surviving court challenges from the Democrats, the new boundaries set the stage for a GOP gain of five House seats in the state in November.

The fight in Georgia is following a similar pattern. The state drew districts in 2001, when Democrats controlled the governorship and both state legislative chambers. Republicans successfully sued to overturn the lines for state legislative seats. But a federal court upheld the map for U.S. House seats.

GOP gains in the 2002 and ’04 elections upended the state’s political dynamic, giving Republicans control of both legislative chambers and the governorship. And this year, under prodding from first-term Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), Republicans in the legislature agreed to redo the maps for House seats.

Westmoreland said new boundaries were needed because the Democratic plan split the state into serpentine districts that excessively divided communities and produced diffuse, scattered constituencies difficult to represent.

“The overall goal is to take away these crazy lines,” he said.

But Robert Brown, the state Senate’s Democratic leader, said the redistricting was “purely driven by the Republican political agenda.”

The GOP holds seven of Georgia’s 13 House seats; many state political analysts think the party would probably gain one more seat -- and perhaps two -- under the new map.

Georgia Democrats are threatening lawsuits against the new lines. But in Washington, Democrats are exploring more direct forms of retaliation.

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has suggested the party may push local officials to redraw maps in Illinois, New Mexico and Louisiana -- where Democrats gave won unified control of state governments since boundaries were changed after the 2000 Census.

“I think we would be foolish to sit on the sidelines and have our heads beaten in and not.... see what we can do in response,” Hoyer said.

In Illinois, state Sen. Cullerton said the Democrats’ 10-9 advantage in the House delegation didn’t reflect the partisan balance in the state -- Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John F. Kerry easily carried the state. Redistricting, Cullerton said, could gain the Democrats perhaps two more seats.

“We’re going to be here until the end of May,” he said of the legislature. “We could pass this bill and draw these boundaries in two days on these computer programs.”

If the redistricting conflict continues to grow, it may provide compelling examples for those -- such as Schwarzenegger and Democrats in Florida -- looking to diminish direct political control over the process.

And increased partisan conflict over redistricting could boost those efforts by encouraging citizen groups -- motivated less by partisanship and more by reform principles -- to ally with the bids to shift control of the process away from the legislature, said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst in Washington.

“More people looking at the current system will think it is broken, and that is an argument” that could attract broader support for new rules for redistricting, he said.