Should redistricting be political or nonpartisan?

Pignanelli: During a dinner 15 years ago with my Italian grandmother, Lena Pignanelli, I observed that because of her recent move from central Wyoming to downtown Salt Lake City, my Irish grandmother, Mary Murphy, could now cast the ballot for me in the next legislative election. The west-side Pignanelli family matriarch responded, "I dream of the day that I, too, can vote for my grandson . . . before I die." Miraculously, that burden was lifted from me six months later when the Legislature approved a new configuration of my district that included both grandmothers — and a bunch of other Democrats. (There is a great story of political intrigue behind this "blessing" bestowed upon my family.)

Every 10 years, and in almost every state, similar and more gruesome manipulations of the congressional and state legislative redistricting process occur. While redrawing districts in order to preserve or create "safe" seats is an ancient bipartisan activity, high technology has now made it an art form. Studies indicate that less than 10 percent of the congressional seats are "competitive" by any stretch of the imagination, a downward trend for the last 50 years. Incumbents enjoy the natural advantages of easier fund raising and name identification and are guaranteed a partisan base of overwhelming proportions. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled state legislatures can redraw the boundaries for political reasons at any time. In 2002 and 2004, 99 percent of the congressional incumbents were returned to office. Also, most legislators in the country enjoy similar benefits of incumbency.

Carving districts to increase or maintain political strength with little geographical or community concerns (historically labeled "gerrymandering") has contributed toward the polarization of American politics. Elected officials from lopsided partisan districts don't worry about appealing to the mainstream but strive to keep extremists happy. This lack of competition has diminished the ability, and drive, to construct practical solutions to the real problems.

Responsible officials in other states shared this concern and established nonpartisan independent commissions to create their congressional and legislative districts. The criterion for such a commission in composing a district is amazingly simple and reasonable: respect communities of interest, ensure geographical compactness and ignore incumbency. LaVarr's predictable assertion that this is just some woolly liberal concept is easily rebutted by the fact that our neighboring states in the Intermountain Region (i.e. Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Colorado) have such credible institutions.

A balanced Utah Reapportionment Commission will not change partisan power but will infuse in the election process greater competition — the dynamic which has increased our quality of life in America.