Redirect your attention to redistricting process

Jack Wempe
The Hutchinson News
March 28, 2009

Until it is observed firsthand, the reapportionment process conducted by the state Legislature seems a rather simple process. The census provides the numbers, the geography is stable, each election district is to fall within a given range in population total, no discrimination is to be tolerated, computers are to be utilized, and the rest is math. Were it so simple. 

Much of our red/blue acrimony is the result of the reapportionment process. About the only time the reds and the blues find cooperation advantageous is at reapportionment time. Incumbency need be protected. And those district lines can do wonders in terms of guaranteeing a majority. 

When districts can be created that reflect heavy one-party registration, its representative has little incentive to stray from party orthodoxy. Re-election safety lies in agreement with the majority. And creating districts with heavy majorities, regardless of party, results in today's circumstance whereby only a few races are competitive. 

On the other hand, minority registrants can be shoved together. Better to award sure representation to one area rather than to risk any possibility of losing two. 

The minority faction of a party also benefits. Its ability to elect rests with low turnout primaries and a general election within a heavily partisan district. Its November success depends upon faithful party members biting their lips and voting for the person with the proper label despite basic policy disagreement. 

Most good-government organizations and most thoughtful nonpartisan political thinkers believe reapportionment must be somewhat removed from the legislative process if ever citizen welfare is to achieve priority above party and special interest welfare. Several states have created a different system. Kansas has not. 

But that could change. Four party leaders in the Kansas Legislature have advanced a proposal, SB291, to move the reapportionment process out of the Legislature except for final approval with an up or down vote. Senate President Steve Morris and Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt are the Republicans involved. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley and House Minority Leader Paul Davis are the Democrats on board. The principal leader who has yet to endorse the proposal is Hutchinson's Mike O'Neal, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A hearing has been held but no action on the bill has occurred. Some think the measure will be allowed to simply wither and die in committee. 

The primary institutional opposition comes from the Kansas Republican Assembly, the so-called conservative wing of the GOP. That group has yet to qualify its opposition as self-interest or good government. A hint of its position may be contained in a statement by spokesman Charlotte Esau, "Frankly, I don't see political decisions as inherently evil." 

The proposal is based upon the system used in Iowa. A commission, four members equalized between the parties, and a chairman selected by the four, would be created to oversee the process. The nonpartisan Legislative Research Department would do the actual work conforming to the requirements of the statute and whatever direction was provided by the commission and by the federal government. Districts would be created without regard to party registration. Public hearings would be held by the commission before submission to the Legislature. The Kansas House of Representatives, the Kansas Senate, the Kansas Board of Education and the U.S. Congress would be affected. 

Sen. Schmidt describes the issue cogently. "The human instinct for self-preservation always washes over the Legislature during redistricting years. As a result, redistricting becomes a personal issue that shapes and colors every other public policy issue considered by the Legislature." 

Legislative sessions addressing reapportionment are usually stormy and partisan. It is not the fault of the participants. As Schmidt says, self-preservation is a very human instinct. The work of legislators is political. No one should be surprised when politics becomes the focus in that most politically fundamental of tasks, reapportionment. Esau may be correct in her analysis of inherent evil, but it is hard to argue that reapportionment is not a terrible distraction for the Legislature as it attempts to manage the work of government. 

California, through initiative, voted on a similar plan last fall. It passed narrowly. Democrats who currently control that state's legislature opposed it vigorously. It was supported by many groups including the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, AARP, Several Chamber of Commerce groups, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Taxpayers Association. It was also supported by the governor. 

The interesting thing about the current Kansas proposal has been the lack of editorial comment and the failure of good-government groups to become involved. The leaders who have presented the plan deserve credit for a suggestion that typically has the support of those interested in better government. Surely apathy in Kansas has not reached the stage that would permit such an innovation to fade away unnoticed. 

Whether this proposal is the perfect vehicle for change is subject to discussion and negotiation. But the principle it represents is certainly worthy of serious debate. 

The opportunity may not again appear.