Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that it would rather not interfere with how states draw maps that determine the voting districts for legislative, Congressional and state board of education elections.
This is an affair that occurs after each decades U.S. Census. In Kansas, legislators are to redraw the political maps by the second year after the Census, ideally taking the ebbs and flows of our states population into account to assign proportional representation. In 2012, Kansas legislators could not agree as to how districts should be divided, and the states map was ultimately drawn by a panel of three judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
By evidence that no one was happy with that end result, the 2012 map is probably the fairest one could hope for.
The 2010 Census showed that though the state had gained 6.1% population, those in rural areas suffered steep declines, some by more than 10%. Another significant change was that the states Hispanic population grew by 59%, and, as such, should be reflected as a voting unit where possible.
In an effort to divide and conquer the few Democrats in Kansas, the Republican-dominated committees considered 18 maps including versions that would split the communities of Kansas City, Lawrence and Topeka into two voting districts. In Kansas Citys case, a proposed scenario was to lump Democrat-leaning Wyandotte County with the farming communities of western Kansas, more than 400 miles away.
The closest legislators ever came to compromise was to move Lawrence away from metro Kansas City in District 3 over to District 2 along with Topeka and us in Eastern Kansas. Where to put Manhattan, however, proved to be a continual stumbling block for the feuding Republicans. Because its home to Kansas State University, some saw it as a natural fit with its more educated counterparts in Lawrence and metro Kansas City, and indeed, thats where Manhattan officials preferred to be included. Conservatives, however, wanted to dilute that ideological stronghold by placing it with the western half of Kansas in District 1.
At the time, the Senate was comprised of more moderate Republicans while ultra-conservatives held reign over the House. In fact, House Speaker Mike ONeal took the unusual step of appointing himself chair of the redistricting committee. Today, ONeal is director of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
In the end, neither side could reach compromise by deadline, leaving, for the first time in state history, the decision up to the judges. Their map moved Lawrence into the 2nd Congressional District, putting all of Lawrence voters in the same district, instead of being split between the 2nd and 3rd Districts.
As for Manhattan, it was included with its western neighbors of District 1.
In their memo, the district judges reprimanded legislators for tactics they said had devolved to nothing short of blatant gerrymandering, for ideological political advantage and to serve political ambitions of various legislators.
NOW THAT the nations highest court has ruled its OK to devise voting maps that favor one political party over another and not necessarily reflect the demographic makeup of the region we can expect legislators to start sharpening their pencils.
And were worried our next map will not resemble anything like the linear model we have today. Picasso comes to mind. A fine artist indeed. But his work should have no bearing in representative democracy.
Susan Lynn
