Nonpartisan Redistricting Process

NonpartisanRedistricting Process

NonpartisanRedistricting Process

Mostdistrict boundaries in the US are drawn based on partisan desires,but this should not be allowed and the redistricting process shouldbe strictly non-partisan to break the congressional andhyper-partisanshipgridlockthat is based on partisan desires. The redistricting process that ispartisan not only allows the incumbent politicians to give help totheir partisan allies, but also the process allows the politiciansto choose a number of voters before they are chosen by the voters andalso the political enemies are hurt in the process (Litton, 2012).Redistricting should focus on ensuring that there fair representationand power of voting should be equal for all, but toady, theseboundaries are drawn to reduce competition and protect incumbents,with the aim of furthering political goals.

Accordingto Hood &amp McKee (2008), the republicans in 2005 redrew thegerrymander of 2005 of Democratic Party with the aim of unseating twodemocratic house seats in the year two thousand and six, in Georgia.They defended the drawing of these boundaries by saying that theywere more compact, but their motive was different.

There-redistricting process occurs once after every ten years and it hasturned out that many people have been subjected to its brutality andunfairness. In the year 2003, the infamous drive by Tom Delay thataimed at undoing his Texas home seat increased his friend’sprobability of being reelected again .This plan was adopted byrepublicans despite being opposed by state legislators fromDemocratic Party. This led to democrats moving to the neighboringstates. As a result, the re-redistricting process made it easier forthe Texas republicans to be able to overthrow four house seats fromthe democratic state (Snare, 2001).

Republicanswere also victims of the redistricting process in 2002 when democratsunseated two republicans in the state of Maryland. The democrats havealso been retaliating through several governors redrawingcongressional boundaries in their respective states.

Therefore,nonpartisan redistricting should be encouraged since the partisan onehas proven to be unfair and it involves candidates more than voters.Also, the general election has proven not to be of paramountimportance to candidates from safe districts, but their biggestconcern is their challengers (Litton, 2012). Thus, it is importantfor the redistricting process to done without giving attention topartisan concerns. Moreover, redrawing that occurs in betweencensuses should be banned in all states to prevent partisan alliesreducing competition and protecting their incumbents. Non-partisanprocesses and commissions should be formed and be given theresponsibilities of drawing these lines.

Inconclusion, the redistricting process that is in the hand ofindependent commissions would be beneficial to all parties withoutfavoring any. Thus, the republicans’ party would have to surrendertheir power of drawing lines in Texas and Florida, while theDemocratic Party would have to abandon its power of drawingboundaries in California. Also, the voters would have the opportunityto vote the political party they like, and the political partieswould not have the chance to create district boundaries for their ownbenefit. The nonpartisan redistricting process would also give votersmore power to choose their preferable candidate, rather than thepolitical party’s candidates choosing the people they prefer torepresent. Consequently, this process would cease to be an affair ofrepublican and democrat parties, and would become a subject ofvoters. This is a good opportunity for the public to take the leadand influence the kind of the politicians they want to vote for andnot vice versa.


Hood,M. V. &amp McKee, S. V. (2008). Gerrymandering on Georgia`sMind: The Effects of Redistrictingon Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election. SocialScience Quarterly, 89(1),60-77.

Litton,N. (2012). TheRoad to Better Redistricting: Empirical Analysis and State-Based Reforms to Counter Partisan Gerrymandering.OhioStateLaw Journal,73, 839.

Snare,J. (2001). The Scope of the Powers and Responsibilities of the TexasLegislaturein Redistrictingand the Exploration of Alternatives to the Legislative Role: A BasicPrimer. TexasHispanic Journal of Law &amp Policy,6, 83.