May 2011 article on my redistricting assignment

The following is from an article I submitted to the Spectrum Newspaper in May of 2011 The redistricting process can seem like an odd ritual with obscure rules because it is something that only happens once every ten years. Like a total solar eclipse, this is a rare event and it can be easy for the details of how the process works to fade from our memories between cycles. As the only legislator from Southern Utah on the redistricting committee, I feel very lucky to be a part of this historic process that will shape the political future of our corner of the State for the next decade. There are two very important events coming up for our area. The Redistricting Committee will be holding two hearing in Southern Utah on Saturday, June 11th, 2011. The first will be at 10:00 am in Cedar City, then the committee with move to St. George for a 3:00 pm hearing. This is your opportunity to weigh in on how the districts ought to be drawn and I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity. The committee has adopted some overarching principles and procedural guidelines that will guide the committee in its work. The six principles are: 1. Congressional districts must be as nearly equal as practicable with a deviation not greater than ± .1 %. 2. State legislative districts and state school board districts must have substantial equality of population among the various districts with a deviation not greater than ± 3.5%. 3. Districts will be single member districts. 4. Plans will be drawn to create four Congressional Districts, 29 State Senate Districts, 75 State House Districts, and 15 State School Board Districts. 5. In drawing districts, the official population enumeration of the 2010 decennial census will be used. 6. Districts will be contiguous and reasonably compact. Many of these principles have their roots in various court cases that have refined the redistricting process over the course of U.S. history. For instance in the case of Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the Supreme Court held state political districts of unequal size resulted in under-representation of some citizens' interests and over-representation of others'. This was considered "unrepublican," per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and also unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In order to meet constitutional standards, districts had to be reapportioned so each had approximately equal population. Other court rules have expressed the court’s preference for single member districts and for contiguous and compact (i.e. protection against gerrymandering) districts (Shaw v. Reno 1993 and Miller v. Johnson 1995). Some of the most difficult parts of the redistricting process have been eased with the advent of computer mapping software; making it possible to “draw” district while the computer does the hard work of calculating the population totals as the lines shift on the map. One difficulty will likely always remain. Were our population evenly distributed across the State, it would be easy to grid off square districts with even lines. However, our population is anything but evenly distributed and geographic features often separate populations in ways that defy even, straight lines. The Legislature is working on an on-line tool that will allow anyone to try their hand at drawing district maps and I encourage everyone to log-on and give it a try. I hope to see you all on June 11th for the redistricting hearings!