The bait and switch I got from the Sunday editorial on redistricting needs to be called out. After rereading “Putting voters first” and the headline “A new redistricting vision” a reader is pulled in and finds in the third sentence the redistricting commission may need to be tweaked.
I get it, the bar needs lowering so the suggested reform at the end can seem substantial.
But in the editorial the reader is told some truth: Redistricting in this state is two major parties jointly protecting their incumbents and the rest is just avoiding breaking the law, and that’s just awful/politics.
Instead of offering Iowa as an example, where too, incumbents seek and get protection behind the scenes, go big and sever most of the link altogether.
A randomly drawn citizen commission utilizing criteria such as existing communities of interest (jurisdictional boundaries, land use categories) and general compactness make a couple dozen versions and two are drawn at random and one selected in an election.
The Herald should be more honest about its love/hate relationship with incumbents.
Larry Allred
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
