Centerfield

Good stuff... Jeremy is one of the most intelligent bloggers on the net, IMO.

This is definitely an issue ripe for centrist approaches. However, I think that other solutions should also be considered, not just resort to "non-partisan" committees.

I would definitely like to see the evidence of how states which have created non-partisan redistricting committees have fared, what pros and cons they have experienced, and whether there have been any "scandals" where the non-partisans were alleged to be more "partisan" than "non-".

Also, while it is imperative, of course, to have the new processes obey the Voting Rights Acts, we should also keep in mind that current political realities show that racial divisions tend to be political divisions as well. An African-American district is, in reality today, going to be a Democratic district.

We managed to get by pretty well over the past 200 years with politically determined district boundaries. I'd like to explore the factors that led both parties to become more partisan in the districting process, and look at adjusting some of those factors rather than simply trying to take the politics out of politics.

Yes, we managed to get by pretty well for 200 years with politically determined district boundaries. Not very well (see Mr. Gerry, et al.), but pretty well. But that was then.

The difference today is that, with databases of voters, drawing district boundaries is no longer a matter of a couple of men in a smoke-filled room trying to estimate what kind of voters are where. Now, programs are available which will take voting paterns for every percinct, and combine it with voter registration data block by block (actually house by house), and create districts with any particular composition you want. And the kind of composition that the politicians drawing the boundaries want is SAFE.

Call it a tragedy of technology if you want. But the world has changed, and the rules need to be re-thought to deal with it as it is today.