District lines ought to be for voters

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

January 13, 2004 Tuesday Home Edition

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 15A

LENGTH: 639 words

BYLINE: JIM WOOTEN

SOURCE: AJC

BODY:
It's hard to blame Georgia Democrats for committing sins Republicans committed in Texas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

When they regained control of state government in Texas, Republicans promptly redrew congressional districts in a way that will make it highly unlikely Democrats can retake the U.S. House of Representatives this year.

Before redistricting, Democrats in Texas held a 17-15 advantage in Congress, though Texas is completely Republican at the state level. Afterward, up to 10 incumbent Democrats were at risk, one of whom has already switched parties.

While Georgia Republicans were arguing last week in Atlanta before a three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel in Austin upheld the new Texas congressional map.

Against that backdrop, it's hard legally to establish that weirdly drawn districts featuring bizarre shapes were too partisan. Testifying in federal court here last week, state Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) said of the 2001 Georgia redistricting process: "It was partisan from the get-go. What was surprising was the brutality [by Democrats]. There was no reaching out to us."

For the record, what Democrats did here was outrageous. Creating a state Senate district that runs from north of Augusta to south of Griffin, as state Sen. Joey Brush's does, effectively denies remote voters an equal opportunity to have their views represented. Creating a congressional district that wraps around I-285 on the south side of Atlanta, as U.S. Rep. David Scott's does, likewise marginalizes voters.

Democrats shouldn't have done it. They should have paid a political price. And did. "I absolutely feel the disenfranchisement people felt over the districts that were drawn contributed as much to my election as anything," Gov. Sonny Perdue said in an interview just before the start of this legislative session. "I intend to be very aggressive in curing the ills that were forced upon the people of Georgia," he vowed.

No doubt, the state and the nation would be better off with a less partisan approach to redistricting. It is easy enough to legislate principles of fairness that will guide redistricting --- preserving, for example, communities of interest --- and to draw lines that serve voters, not incumbents.

The real question, though, is not about bizarre and fragmented districts, but about whether a vote in one part of the state counts as much as a vote in another.

Using sophisticated computer software, state Senate districts were underpopulated by 4.99 percent in population-declining Democratic districts and overpopulated by 4.99 percent in rapidly-growing Republican districts.

As a result Democrats were able to pick up, in the 9.98 percent swing, a full state Senate district.

But from the voters' standpoint, it meant that with the very first funeral in a Democratic district, the district would have been out of legal compliance, as would the overpopulated district with the first new home or apartment.

Courts, recognizing the difficulty of drawing precise districts by hand, had previously granted latitude if a legislative district was out of kilter by no more than 5 percent.

With the software, districts could be drawn with 0 percent deviation --- and were in most state congressional districts. None of Georgia's congressional districts varies by more than 37 people. And that was with the 12th Congressional District being drawn specifically for state Sen. Charles Walker's son.

Personality politics and partisanship are acceptable legally.

But a vote in Hahira should count the same as a vote in Hiram. And it doesn't. That is something the court should fix now.

Jim Wooten is the associate editorial page editor. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

jwooten@ajc.com