Guidelines for Drawing the Lines of Districts

Re “Looking to Design a Fairer Map,” Feb. 13: I would favor restructuring the reapportionment process as soon as Texas adopts a nonpartisan plan. Reapportionment has always been a political decision, and to give it to a panel of unelected judges not beholden to the people is part of a trend to take what should be the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches and give it to unelected bureaucrats or automatic formulas. California, representing 12% of the House, should not unilaterally disarm in the face of continuing efforts by the House leadership to solidify Republican misrule.

Raymond White

Pasadena

*

As much as I enjoy the Democrats having the power in Sacramento, I agree that gerrymandering is out of control in California, and I support efforts to bring back reasonably shaped districts and competitive electoral races. Apparently, the main reform proposed is to hand the job of designing non-amphibian-looking district maps to nonpartisan panels. But why don’t we help these panelists with some objective criteria to follow?

When we think about a reasonably shaped district, one of the main qualities we have in mind is compactness. One way to mandate compactness is to say that the circumference or border for a given area cannot exceed a certain amount. Mathematically this could be achieved by saying that the ratio of the circumference divided by the square root of the area could not exceed a given value. We might call this the “gerrymander ratio.”

Of course, the panelists will want to consider other factors, such as traditional boundaries and natural physical features such as rivers, but the “gerrymander ratio” should help to guide them. With a good example, maybe the rest of the country will follow, perhaps even Texas.

James Loewen

Venice