Fixing the Reapportionment Mess

Send this Article to a Friend

Printable page

December 7, 2000

Opinion Editorial

By Bill Blomberg

To the surprise of almost everyone except state Sen. Mike Feeley, the Democrats just gained control of the Colorado Senate for the first time in 40 years. Nonetheless, it happened, in no small part due to the efforts of the term-limited (but gubernatorial front-runner?) Lakewood Democrat Feeley.

This development is especially significant because this is the year in which political district reapportionments take place. The Senate plays the major role in this process and Democratic control means that every effort will be made to create election boundaries that will favor the election of Democrats. This would be particularly important should Colorado be awarded a seventh congressional seat.

If the Republicans had maintained control of the Senate, there is little doubt that they could have easily sculpted the seven districts such that there would likely be 5 seats won (read: owned) by the GOP and 2 by the Democrats. However, with the Democrats calling the shots, the prospect of five safe Republican seats is unlikely.

Denver Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGettes safe seat will likely get even safer. The four Republican Congressmen will almost certainly be protected. The fate of Boulder Democratic Congressman Mark Udalls seat is unclear, but we know that his district lines will not be drawn in a way that attempts to drive him out of office. As for the seventh seat, it could be carefully-balanced between Democrats and Republicans, or could lean Republican, depending in part on how many Democrats Udall and DeGette get to keep in their own districts.

The whole reapportionment process is gratuitously political and would therefore be a good candidate for reform. Although using politicos to set boundaries may seem like a natural act, and may have been necessary in the past, in this the information age we no longer need to be at the mercy of those seeking to increase political advantage over and above what it otherwise would be. Both parties play the same game for the same ends.

Rather than having our elected officials spending thousands of hours trying to scheme out the most advantageous election district boundaries (leading to the inevitable bizarre gerrymanders), it would be a relatively simple task to commission a computer algorithm that would spit out election boundaries based on census data and the Colorado Constitution. Then it would only be necessary to argue once over what exactly the algorithm would be. Every ten years thereafter, the reapportionment would occur per the algorithm, with no need for human meddling.

What might the software consider when drawing boundaries? Of course, close-to-equal populations between districts would be required. (Article V, section 46 of Colorados Constitution mandates a maximum of 5% difference between the smallest and largest of the same type of district.) The state Constitution goes on (Article V, section 47) to prescribe that districts shall be as compact in area as possible and that the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Additionally, rules or goals concerning splitting existing counties and cities between districts are laid out. Finally, Section 47 mandates that communities of interestshall be preserved within a single district wherever possible.

Although some aspects of the rules as spelled out in the constitution are unambiguous, the references to possible are a license to fight, i.e. get political. By writing an algorithm, the goals and requirements set in the constitution could argued over once and for all and then be permanently reflected in the software, which would then calculate an optimal solution without any partisan manipulating.

The quantifiable requirements such as the maximum 5% population difference or minimum district boundaries requirement, especially when considered together, might drive a human crazy, but would be a cakewalk for a computer. The more nebulous communities of interest goal could be addressed using census data to ascribe numerical values for population density, average incomes, average age, race, etc. Political affiliation could be explicitly excluded from consideration. The algorithm would then optimize (use as a tiebreaker) different redistricting options based on the communities of interest goal.

By converting the Constitutions words into software code, a fairer, more rational and consistent redistricting result could be had. And it would be cheaper to boot. The private sector has spawned great gains in productivity and efficiency by implementing information technology and moving into the 21^st century. Its time our governmental agenci es got with the program and jettisoned antique means of doing business.

Bill Blomberg is a Research Associate with the Independence Institute, a government reform think tank in Golden, www.independenceinstitute.org.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org