Redistricting a political headache, as elected officials usually get their way

I couldn’t help but notice a pair of actions this week related to redistricting – actions that go against the desires of those people who have problems with the way politicians put their own self-interest ahead of what allegedly benefits “the public” when it comes to drawing political district boundaries.

This version of Chicago is no more



For it seems that as long as politicians follow certain guidelines, they can more  or less draw whatever boundaries they want and the courts will feel compelled to go along.

ONE SUCH ACTION occurred in my home town of Chicago, where the City Council managed to approve new boundaries for the city’s 50 wards – changes meant to reflect shifts in population that include a boost in the number of Latinos who live in Chicago.

The other action came from the Supreme Court of the United States – which unanimously shot down the efforts of an appeals court that had ruled Texas state officials had put together boundaries that violated a sense of fairness.

Now Texas needs new Congressional district boundaries, and the nation’s high court says they have to bear some resemblance to the map that the state Legislature drew up.

That map, of course, was prepared by a Republican majority and was a blatant effort to keep in check the significant population gains by Latinos in the Lone Star State.

THE APPEALS COURT had ruled that the state Legislature wrongly acted in ways to dilute minority voting strength. But the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that redistricting is essentially a state issue, and not the business for a federal court to get involved in.

Who's to say how much this will change



So Texas is likely to get something along the lines of what the Republican majority of that state wanted in the first place; boundaries meant to ensure that Texas sends a majority of Republicans to Washington as part of its congressional delegation.

And that will be done, in large part, by keeping the growing Latino population under control. Which I’m sure pleases the ideologues.

But it does reinforce the idea that I was taught some two decades ago. There is no one “right” map when drawing political boundaries. So long as basic rules are followed, the courts will usually go along with whatever concoction the local politicians come up with for themselves.

AND IF IT means my ethnic brethren in Texas (including an aunt and cousin who live in San Antonio) get snubbed a bit in the process, then it becomes all too legal.

Which is what the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund ought to keep in mind as they contemplate the idea of lawsuits in Chicago – claiming that the City Council on Thursday could have done a better job of drawing ward boundaries to reflect the fact that 29 percent of the city’s population is Latino (compared to 33 percent African-American and 32 percent white – mostly ethnic).

For the fact is that the City Council approved a map that gave slight increases to Latino  political representation, and managed to do so in a process that is being called political compromise.

I write it that way because the honest truth is that this particular set of ward boundaries was forced down the aldermanic throat by certain leaders, including Mayor Rahm Emanuel – who just wants a map passed so that they can move on with things.

BUT STILL, A process was followed. Which means the high courts are likely to think that the process was followed, and that its results should be respected.

As for the rest of us? Perhaps we’ll need to stock up on clothespins – to help keep our nostrils pinched to protect us from the stench of partisan politics.

  -30-