Legal but not ethical

To the victor go the spoils — and in Utah politics, the spoils include the power to create more victories.

The predominantly Republican redistricting committee appears to be collecting a few spoils as it draws new Senate and House maps. Some proposed boundaries seem suspiciously finagled to make sure that incumbents are re-elected, even if it means unnecessarily splitting communities two or three ways.

Take, for example, the city of Ogden, in which three state senators live within a few miles of one another. The committee recommends splitting the city along lines that conveniently maneuver around the homes of these incumbent legislators, creating one district so disfigured as to require driving through three other districts to get from one end to the other.

Or look at Logan, where a boundary is drawn right through the center of Utah State University. Even if it is necessary to divide the city in some way, it is difficult to believe this requires breaking up such a unique and discrete community of students.

Committee members have pointed out that their Senate map requires no state senators to run against one another. We wish they could brag instead about how few cities were split, rather than how many political careers were saved.

We accept that it is impossible to draw a map that satisfies everyone and that some communities of interest are bound to be divided. But this fact can only stretch so far when it's used as cover for unnecessary boundaries that benefit politicians and hurt communities. It's possible to satisfy far more people and preserve far more communities when the interests of incumbents aren't getting in the way.

To be fair, the committee gave a small win to Democrats by deciding not to combine the districts of Democratic Sen. Luz Robles and Republican Sen. Dan Liljenquist. They also proposed offering Democrats the option of deciding boundaries in Salt Lake County, where seven Senate districts are being collapsed into six.

As high-minded and conciliatory as these olive branches may be, they still frame the entire exercise in terms of incumbency, rather than in terms of community. From the first meeting of the committee, legislators refused to consider communities of interest as a criterion for redistricting, and the result is reflected in the maps we see today.