RepubliFact Number 2

Revisiting Redistricting

Dems would have us believe redistricting is a process hallowed in the Constitution. Not so, we Republicans know the nation’s owners manual makes not a mention of congressional districts.

The Constitution does spell out the formula for how many representatives each state can send to the nation’s capital. At bottom, the more people a state has, the more representation it earns in the U.S. House. Initially, state delegations were largely elected “at-large” to where, in theory, all of Texas’s representatives could be from San Antonio, or Leakey, or…

Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s led to a “one person, one vote” requirement. So over the last half century or so, state legislatures (or in some states, commissions) have redrawn congressional district lines mindful of population shifts to, from and within a given state. While the process has a political bent to it — the power of the map-drawing pen going to the party in power — redistricting also has an extraordinary mathematical bent to it in that the law of the land requires that districts not vary in population from other districts by more than one. Not one percent, mind you, one person. So, crazy as the district shapes may look, much of the funky geometry is due to adherence to the co-equal population stipulation. (Congressional districts roughly have 750,000 people; states with less than this as an overall population (looking at you, Wyoming…) simply send one at-large representative.)

Slogging through the courts are Dem-led/backed challenges to some Texas districts drawn by the lege in 2011 following the 2010 census. Two more election cycles, and the next round of redistricting commences afresh. Is redistricting a perfect process? Maybe not.

Is redistricting enshrined in the Constitution as the Left insists? Certainly not.

Is Texas the greatest state in the U.S., and is the U.S. the greatest country in the world?

Are those even real questions?

 

Robert Stovall,
Chairman