Testimony of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign in Support of AJR 22 and AJR 41 Relating to Redistricting
Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, May 26, 2005
Posted: June 21, 2005
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign appreciates this opportunity to testify in support of both AJR 22 and AJR 41, proposals to reform legislative redistricting. Reforming our redistricting process is vital to rebuilding our democracy in Wisconsin. It is our belief that establishing legal standards for drawing voting districts and putting the task in the hands of an independent authority are not mutually exclusive. The two proposals together would create competitive elections and work to end the extreme partisanship in our state Legislature.
In a real democracy voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. Both proposals represent positive steps in the direction of that ideal, and both deserve support.
The Problem
Currently, partisan leaders use sophisticated computerized mapping to handpick their voters. The crassly political way district maps are drawn favors current office holders by creating districts where voters favoring them outnumber voters loyal to the opposition. This is done by either concentrating the voting power of the opposition into just a few districts or diluting the opposition’s voting power across many districts. Today, modern technology has lent new precision to the art of redistricting - and taken gerrymandering to new lows.
Rearranging legislative districts to favor the party in power is lethal to our representative democracy. It reduces the number of competitive elections, increases voter cynicism, turns-off potential new candidates, and increases partisan extremism in our state Legislature.
Most of the concerns generated by the current redistricting process address the resulting epidemic of uncontested state legislative races. In the 2004 November Elections, 2.2 million voters in Wisconsin had no choice for their representative in at least one house of our state Legislature…that’s 2.2 million out of roughly 4 million. Of the 132 seats in the Wisconsin Legislature, fewer than 20 are now truly competitive. Public awareness of how little say citizens have in who represents them in the Legislature is a recipe for voter cynicism. We experience less accountability from our elected officials in “safe districts” for they no longer fear the voters. Legislators’ doors are closing to those who do not fully agree with their positions. Lopsided districts demoralize voters and make it harder to get fresh blood and new ideas into the Legislature.
One largely untold story behind gerrymandering of voting districts is the resulting polarization of politics. A byproduct of partisan gerrymandering is candidates who appeal to just one side. Squeezed out are candidates who appeal to moderates or independents. Partisan extremism produces a Legislature heavy on ideologues and light on pragmatists. There is more demagoguery and less compromise or problem solving. As one recently retired state representative remarked about the climate he was leaving behind: “As a community of politicians, we’ve created this situation where we’e sniveling, backbiting, partisan hacks. So we don’t get a very good pool of statesmen or lawmakers.” We now have a Legislature with fewer members willing to deliberate, let alone compromise, to get the public’s business done.
The Solution
There is an antidote for the partisan extremism and demagoguery that one-sided districts promote – a redistricting process such as that in neighboring Iowa. We can have more competitive elections and more civility among lawmakers by ending partisan gerrymandering of districts and creating an independent commission in charge of drawing voting districts. The legal mandates in AJR 41 strengthen the process by which such districts are kept competitive and politically viable.
Iowa’s nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau redraws the districts using four criteria – equal population, contiguity, unity of counties and cities and compactness in descending order. By law, the Bureau must ignore such factors as political affiliation, previous election results, the addresses of incumbents, or any demographic information other than population in creating the redistricting proposals. Not coincidentally, races for all five of Iowa’s U.S. House seats are competitive, the only state that can make that claim. Wisconsin, by contrast, cannot lay claim to a single truly competitive House district.
If Wisconsin wants a democracy worthy of the name, a way needs to be found to curb the excesses of partisan redistricting. We don’t have to look far to find proven models capable of producing more competitive elections and more partisan cooperation. All who are interested in empowering voters and restoring competitive elections should keep debate away from which proposal is best and instead support passage of both Assembly Joint Resolution 22 and Assembly Joint Resolution 41.
