By Susanna Ray
Herald Writer
Both Democrats and Republicans appear to be happy with the new legislative districts drawn over the weekend.
But with the entire redistricting process thrown into a pool of murky legalities now, one of the only positive comments made Monday was that Washington might get a cleaner congressional map out of the deal.
The Redistricting Commission came up with a compromise map of new legislative districts early Sunday, although it missed the deadline by more than four hours, which could call its legality into question.
The new legislative map made some big changes in local districts, most notably adding a new district — the 32nd — to the six that currently represent Snohomish County, and doubling the geographic size of the 39th Legislative District by cutting out densely populated areas and adding rural regions. Each district is required to have about the same number of constituents.
The changes also displaced two local legislators. Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, would now reside in the 44th instead of the 39th for the 2002 elections, which is when the new map will go into effect. And Rep. Dave Schmidt, R-Bothell, would reside in the 1st instead of the 44th.
But the commission completely failed at the task of drawing new lines for the state’s nine congressional districts. That means the state Supreme Court will likely get the job now. And that could be good news for people who scratch their heads when they look at today’s district boundaries.
"The court is more likely to draw compact lines," said Bruce Cain, a redistricting expert with the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. "They’re going to make neater districts.
"And usually they’re not going to pay attention to where incumbents live or the political consequences, that sort of thing," Cain said, adding that justices generally base their decisions purely on the legal requirements of redistricting, such as keeping communities of interest undivided and making sure districts are geographically contiguous.
But even the question of whether or not the high court will get the task remained up in the air Monday, as those involved had few answers for what happens when a new process melts down.
This was only the second time Washington has had a Redistricting Commission. Voters created the group in 1983, and it acted for the first time in 1991. Redistricting occurs every 10 years to alter political boundaries in accordance with the population changes shown in each decade’s census.
"We’ve never done this before," said Bill Collins, senior assistant attorney general. "Ten years ago, the commission adopted plans before the required dates, no one sued and there was no Supreme Court involvement.
"That’s why nobody can say, ‘This is what the next step is.’ Because we’re just trying to figure that out."
There’s a possibility that the Legislature will retroactively change the Dec. 15 deadline it imposed, opting for the Jan. 1 deadline in the constitutional amendment voters passed in 1983. That would take care of any legal questions surrounding the legislative plan, which wasn’t officially approved until 4:25 a.m. Sunday, well after the midnight deadline.
But it wouldn’t help with the congressional plan, unless the four commissioners met again before the end of the year and were able to compromise. And that didn’t appear likely on Monday.
"We’ve reached a deadline, we’ve gone past the deadline, and I don’t think we’re negotiating anymore," said Republican Commissioner Dick Derham, adding that he would only get back with Democrats if they agreed to the GOP’s final offer, with a small change of putting one Democratic congressman back in his district who was "inadvertently" drawn out.
Democratic Commissioner Dean Foster said that scenario won’t happen.
In lieu of such a solution, the court might just choose between the latest Democrat and Republican plans, picking the one that makes the least number of changes to the current districts.
If that were to happen, Everett would stay in the 2nd Congressional District, because that’s what Democrats wanted, and Republicans had made that concession in their final offer Saturday. Everett is traditionally an important bastion of support for Democrats, which would be critical as freshman U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, seeks re-election next year.
"That would be good news for us, but I don’t know what the courts will decide," said Charla Neuman, Larsen’s press secretary. "But we’re looking pretty good in that Everett will still rightfully be part of the 2nd."
Voters created the bipartisan Redistricting Commission in an attempt to take politicking and gerrymandering out of the process, but in the end, it all came down to politics anyway.
The two GOP members said Democrats were trying to cram Republicans into staunchly Democrat districts, which would negate their votes. The Democrats said Republicans were trying to alter too many boundaries, thereby turning Democrat districts into Republican ones.
It’s a feud being chronicled in newspapers across the country, as lawmakers, commissioners and judges in each state try to deal with this once-a-decade juggling act.
Only a handful of states use commissions similar to Washington’s, said Tim Storey, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. In most states, legislators are responsible for redrawing their political boundaries.
"The commission plans have been, I think, even more controversial than the plans produced by legislatures," Storey said, because commissioners are still politically motivated, and the decision-making power then rests with a smaller group than a legislature. "You just can’t take politics out of redistricting."
Even when the courts get involved, "a lot of it depends on who they appoint to do the work," said Cain, a redistricting expert who has written two books on the topic. Washington’s Supreme Court justices are elected themselves, although their offices are nonpartisan.
Judges traditionally take their neutral role very seriously, added Storey, but "the proof will be in the pudding."
You can call Herald Writer Susanna Ray at 425-339-3439
or send e-mail to ray@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
