Home > Massachusetts > Issues > Redistricting > Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s wrong with the process?

Having elected officials draw the districts in which they will run is like the proverbial fox guarding the chicken coop. The redistricting process is used to box potential challengers out of districts and to design districts that maximize support for those in control of the process. Thanks to the wizardry of computer programs that draw incumbent-safe districts with ease, the current process of redistricting is nothing short of democracy on its head: Elected officials picking their voters instead of the other way around. That’s not what democracy is all about.

Redistricting can also be fraught with favoritism: legislative leadership has used it to punish disfavored legislators and reward loyal lieutenants. In the process, communities are fractured, minorities disenfranchised, and districts designed that look like salamanders, snakes, and saxophones. Electoral competition suffers as a result. During the last seven years, Massachusetts has ranked 49^th of the 50 states across the nation in terms of electoral competition, largely thanks to a redistricting process that extinguishes competition. Although elections are uncompetitive for many reasons -- including money in politics and the declining prestige of political service -- the role of incumbent protection through the redistricting process is a significant factor.

In recent decades, redistricting has been conducted behind closed doors on Beacon Hill with little discussion or public input. In 2001, legislators on the House redistricting committee were handed a leadership-designed map 10 minutes prior to the vote and told to vote “yes”—and they did.

That’s no way to choose our leaders.

How are electoral districts currently drawn?

The State Legislature redraws electoral districts following the U.S. census every 10 years for the offices of State Representative, State Senator, and Representatives in Congress. Redrawing districts, or “redistricting” is required by the state and U.S. Constitutions to maintain the notion of “one person, one vote.” Without readjusting electoral districts periodically, population shifts would result in some districts containing vastly more people than others, which would “dilute” some people’s votes and give others more influence.

Wasn’t the 2001 redistricting plan for Boston thrown out recently?

Yes. A federal district court ruled in February 2004 that the House’s 2001 plan violated the Federal Voting Rights Act by under-representing minority voters in the city of Boston. While the percentage of voters of color in Boston increased significantly between 1990 and 2000, the House’s plan actually decreased the number of districts with a majority of non-white voters. It did this by packing minority voters into a few districts and then grabbing parts of adjoining suburbs to make the remaining districts whiter. The court voided the plan, saying the legislature “turned a blind eye to the racial implications of its single-minded effort to protect incumbents at virtually any social cost.”

Courts also threw out redistricting plans in 1993 and in 1997—each of the last three times districts have been redrawn. Litigation costs for the 2004 case alone cost taxpayers 5 million dollars—not counting the money spent on making the offending districts themselves.

If the courts can and do step in, doesn’t that mean the process is working?

No it doesn’t. Not only is all this litigation costly, courts are very limited in the ills they can address. They can only act if districts are unequal in population or purposefully or egregiously disenfranchise minority voters. Manipulating districts to dampen competition or to harm or help a particular individual or party is currently perfectly legal. We think it shouldn’t be.

How should the redistricting process work?

Redistricting should be conducted without political and racial bias. It should keep towns and communities of interest together whenever possible and should not protect favored legislative leaders. It should not be a tool to punish anyone regardless of political belief or status as a challenger or incumbent. Redistricting should be open to public input and scrutiny from beginning to end. In short it should be fair. Right now, it’s not. We hope to change that.

How will this be accomplished?

Redistricting should be taken out of the hands of self-interested legislative leaders and put it into a non-partisan independent redistricting commission guided by strict standards. These standards would become part of our state constitution and would require that:

• Towns and neighborhoods within cities be kept intact and not split between multiple legislators.

• Districts be compact and contiguous.

• Addresses of candidates, including current elected officials and potential candidates should not be part of the calculation.

• Districts uphold the federal voting rights act and not reduce minority representation.

• All aspects of the process be public, including all meetings and documents.

• Citizens should be able to submit maps and provide public comment on any proposals.

  
  

How would members of the commission be selected?

The redistricting commission will have seven members who are appointed in a three-step process to ensure fairness.

Guidelines are written into the law to promote the selection of commissioners who will meet goals for fair redistricting:

So what’s to ensure that the Commission is any less biased than the legislature?

First, they won’t be politicians so they won’t have the same incentive to design districts based on political advantage. Second, and most importantly, they will be limited in their map-making by strict guidelines —keeping towns and neighborhoods together, designing compact districts, not using incumbent or challenger addresses or party registration or partisan voting history. These are currently not required. In fact, the only requirements for drawing districts currently are 1) that districts must have roughly similar populations—plus or minus 5%, 2) that they are contiguous—in other words, that each district has a single footprint, 3) that they can’t violate the federal voting rights act, and 4) very small towns cannot be divided. These requirements plus all the others would bind an independent redistricting commission. It would have much less discretion than the legislature currently has and would have the legal duty to conduct the redistricting process publicly and fairly.

Finally, all aspects of the Commission’s work would be open and public, unlike the Legislature, which is not subject to the open meetings or public records laws. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Has this worked in other states?

Yes. Eleven states conducted redistricting through a commission in 2002, and the average competitiveness of the districts, 70.4 percent, was significantly higher than the roughly 50 percent rate of competition produced by legislative bodies. In Massachusetts our competition rate has been a shockingly low 33 percent. That means that more than two-thirds of our elected officials have no challengers whatsoever. Last year, we did have more competition because Governor Romney recruited many former business colleagues to run for legislative office. But given their 0% success rate, this is unlikely to happen again.

Some of the redistricting commissions that exist in other states are not truly independent of the legislature. But several, including Iowa and Arizona, are. Iowa, which has had an independent redistricting process for several decades, has more competitive Congressional districts than California, New York, and Illinois combined, despite the latter states having 20 times more seats.

So who is behind this effort?

The Fair Districts Initiative Petition is supported by many good government and civil rights organizations: Common Cause Massachusetts, the NAACP New England Area Conference, CPPAX, Oiste the Massachusetts Latino Political Organization, the Union of Minority Neighborhoods, MassVOTE, the National Voting Rights Institute, Mass Voters for Fair Elections, Fair Vote Massachusetts and many others. See our website for the latest list. Many legislators are working on the issue as well.

Which Legislators?

The Fair Districts legislation (Senate Bill 12) is being cosponsored by 59 legislators from all over the state and from all points along the political spectrum.

Those legislators are:

Sens: Moore (lead), Tolman, Havern, Barrios, Brown, Wilkerson, Resor, Hedlund, Tisei, Creem, Brewer, Tucker, Joyce, Tarr, Spilka, McGee, Fargo.

Reps: Wolf, Eldridge, Tom Stanley, Patrick, Petersen, Atkins, Kaufman, Caron, Kocot, Marzilli, Jehlen, Peisch, Story, Smizik, Hill, Jones, Pignatelli, John Keenan, Balser, Gobi, Scibak, Coughlin, Gomes, Travis, Hynes, Kulik, Linsky, Pope, Perry, Khan, Festa, Lepper, Paulsen, Walz, Guyer, Evangelidis, L’Italien, Hall, Fox, Blumer, Rushing, C. Murphy.

Wasn’t there a question on the ballot in 2004?

Yes. Volunteers with Common Cause Massachusetts collected signatures to put the issue on the ballot in 15 state representative districts across the state in November 2004. The questions asked voters whether they wanted to remove redistricting authority from the legislature and instead establish an independent redistricting commission subject to strict guidelines for public participation, non-partisanship, retaining the integrity of existing communities, and respecting the voting rights of minorities. All 15 questions won overwhelmingly, by an average of 67%.

Wasn’t there also a petition drive in the fall of 2005?

Yes, more than 1,000 volunteers circulated the Fair Districts Initiative Petition in the fall of 2005. All told, we collected more than 82,000 signatures, of which close to 60,000 were from unique certified voters, just short of the 65,825 required.

During the campaign, we educated more than 100,000 people about redistricting, spoke to countless groups and meetings, secured endorsements from virtually every major newspaper in the state, obtained endorsements from dozens of groups and major political leaders, and involved more than 1,000 volunteers in making their government a better and more responsive one.

Had we reached our goal of 65,825 certified signatures, our job would not have been done -- we would have required a vote in the legislature. With a qualified petition, we would have needed 50 votes on our petition. Now we will need to get 101 on Senate Bill 12, which is pending before the Constitutional Convention.

What can I do to help?

Call your state legislators to let them know you support Fair Districts and would like them to vote in support of Senate Bill 12 in the Constitutional Convention. Or better yet, schedule an in-person meeting with them along with other redistricting reform supporters. Visit our website www.commoncause.org/ma to learn more. You can also call us at 617-426-9600 or send us an email at ccma@commoncause.org.

59 Temple Place, Suite #600

Boston, MA 02111

(617) 426.9600 – ccma@commoncause.org