Make redistricting more fair

If nothing else, Utah's push for a fourth congressional seat is demonstrating again — this time about five years early — that it needs a better way to draw political boundaries.

Even if this process seems more fair than the one in 2001, that likely is only because Utah has to preserve its one Democratic seat in the House in order to preserve the compromise that would give it a fourth seat (and the District of Columbia a voting seat). But, fair or not, the process still leaves various communities of interest within the state at the mercy of political leaders who, to a large extent, hail from one party.

It's time for Utah to do what many other states have done and set up a bipartisan system for redrawing political boundaries as fairly as possible. Given the Republican domination in the state, such a system is unlikely to produce any result that threatens GOP rule. It might, however, keep adjacent neighborhoods with similar demographics from being carved up into other districts. That sort of thing may have been ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it doesn't make for a very representative government.

In Utah, the struggle over how to draw political boundaries is confined to hallways and rooms at the state Capitol. The haggling is done entirely by politicians interested in preserving their own power bases. That isn't because of any evil intent on their part. It's human nature in a political environment.

The results, however, have been frustrating for many Utah voters. Even with only three representatives, the boundaries have changed considerably in recent decades, all in an effort to squeeze out first Democrat Wayne Owens , then Bill Orton and now Jim Matheson. Some voters don't know how they are affected by all this until they enter the voting booth and learn their longtime representative no longer represents their neighborhood.

Make no mistake, a bipartisan process is no easy thing. States that have such a system report messy battles and compromises. But to a large extent, decisions are being made with communities, rather than political careers, in mind.

The rough edges of politics may be a bit smoother now because a fourth seat is at stake. But that is a temporary condition. The decisions still are being made by only one side of the political process. That means the voters are not choosing their leaders. Rather, the leaders are choosing their voters.