07/09/15: The bad best-case scenario for redistricting

This op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on the date shown.

REDISTRICTING reform supporters let out a huge sigh of relief when the Supreme Court upheld the Arizona redistricting commission late last month.

The decision gives us some hope that we will be given the opportunity to choose those who will represent us, rather than the other way around.

This will come to Virginia neither easily nor soon.

It appears that the case involving Virginia’s 3rd congressional district may again be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you recall, the court refused to hear the case.

It was sent back to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed its earlier ruling that racial gerrymandering had packed black voters into the district. The court ordered the General Assembly to redraw the lines by September 1.

Meanwhile, another case involving 12 legislative districts — also based on racial gerrymandering — is being heard in a federal district court in Alexandria. Lawyers defending the case made the argument that it wasn’t race that created the districts; rather, they argued, it was partisan politics.

It should surprise no one that was the defense. Partisan gerrymandering is legally OK; racial gerrymandering is not.

What’s wrong with this picture? A look at the Hampton Roads General Assembly delegation gives us clues.

This November, all 140 seats in the legislature — 100 in the House of Delegates and 40 in the Senate — will be on the ballot. Hampton Roads has 20 representatives in the House and nine representatives in the Senate. Our House representatives consist of 12 Republicans and eight Democrats; in the Senate, it is four Republicans and five Democrats.

Twelve of the local House representatives — evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — face no opposition. Three of the remaining eight face no major party opponent.

There are three seats in which no incumbent is running: the 79th, the 82nd and the 95th. There is no opponent in the 79th, and no major party opponent in the 95th.

On the Senate side, there will be five contested races; the remaining four incumbents face no opposition. All of the contested races pit major party candidates against each other. Only one — the 8th district — lacks an incumbent on the ballot.

Regardless of the contests, it can reasonably be expected that our 29-member delegation will continue to consist of 16 Republicans and 13 Democrats. The lines drawn by the legislature have fixed it so that, in most cases, the party of the candidates outweighs anything else.

The effect of partisan gerrymandering is to reduce the number of contested races — and create even fewer competitive races. Among the 13 contests in Hampton Roads, probably two or three may end up with a winner’s margin of 10 points or less.

We, of course, help to perpetuate this situation. When Republican voters in majority Democratic districts stay at home on Election Day and when Democratic voters in Republican districts do the same, we cede our part of the process to the legislature.

The Arizona opinion cites The Federalist No. 57. In it, author James Madison refers to the House of Representatives, saying that frequent elections ensure its members have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” We need to remind our state legislators of the same thing.

For those of us with just one name on the ballot, go vote, anyway. The write-in option exists for a reason.

For those with choices, you have the power to make every contested race in Hampton Roads competitive. Please use it.

Until the legislature returns to the people the power to choose our representatives, voting is the only way to send them the message.