Under the Radar:

Parties Collude Using Census to Trade Votes

There are many reasons to be thinking about the upcoming census. Making sure it is properly
funded and that there are as few undercounts as possible are two. We should be thinking just as
hard, or perhaps harder, about the legislative redistricting
process that will follow it in 2021.
For the most part, mapmaking for political jurisdictions has
been controlled by legislators since the first one one was
established. It has been viewed a basic political right.
Computerization of voter and demographic data have refined
this process and made it exquisitely precise. Unfair maps are a
main reason millions of Americans feel disenfranchised. In
most cases, they are.
There’s nothing virtuous about gerrymandering. The party in
power selects the voters it wants away from the public eye.
Members of that party weigh in with their desires for the ideal
electorate they would like to represent. Some final
adjustments are made and the map is adopted. This Original Gerrymander map 1812
nontransparent process is probably the most common
example in our democracy of major parties putting their
interests ahead of the common good.
[David Daley’s very readable book Ratf**ked:Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count tells the fascinating story of how the Republican
party employed voting records, demographics, computing heft and financial resources the redraw state legislative districts
across the country. The resulting maps are the reason that that party now controls both the governorships and legislatures in
40 states.]

Most scholars and good government activists agree that political boundaries should be set
around communities of interest (a longstanding legal and demographic term used to define
people who share the same values) to the extent possible — of course no communities are
homogeneous. Natural features such as wide rivers and mountain ranges should also be
considered.
Fortunately, the problems generated by gerrymandering are being addressed successfully across
the nation. Twenty one states use some form of nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting
commission to establish the maps for political jurisdictions. Efforts to do this are underway in
many other states including New Mexico.
As might be expected, no two states have adopted identical mechanisms for their independent
redistricting bodies. In fact, these bodies have widely disparate structures and procedures:
• In Iowa nonpartisan legislative staff draw the boundaries in what is almost
always an uncontentious process!
• Eight states use bipartisan (only members of the major parties serve)
commissions.
• Most states use “nonpartisan” commissions though in most cases at least some
members are appointed by major party leaders.
• Two states use advisory commissions; their legislatures retain final authority for
boundary setting.
 • The number of members of the various commissions range from three to 18.
• Some states preclude commission members from running for office for a
period of time after their service concludes; most prohibit state employees and
officials from serving on a commission.
The map that New Mexico’s legislature adopted after the last census in 2011 contains many
districts that do not conform to fair community of interest principles. It is important that these
inequities are addressed in 2021. There are three distinct actions that citizens across the state
can take to advance this issue.
• First, citizens should urge their legislators to turn the redistricting process in
2021 over to a nonpartisan body whose members have geographic and
demographic data interpretation skills and who don’t have political interests.
Forward thinking lawmakers should be encouraged to advance legislation that
would accomplish this purpose. Doing so would advance their public image.
• Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, people who feel disenfranchised
because of the configuration of their district should employ a variety of
grassroots organizing methods to urge the legislature to cure the inequity of
their map in 2021. Incumbent legislators who plan to stand for reelection are
attentive to their constituents’ concerns. Even if they aren’t willing to relinquish
authority for boundary setting to an independent body, they will note voter
concerns and take them into account even if the current unfair system stays in
effect.
• Activists in unfairly drawn districts should consider running for office and
make curing the inequity of their jurisdiction’s map a centerpiece of their
campaign.

The time is now. 2020 IS just around the corner! If New Mexicans aren’t
attentive, they’ll become hostage for ten more years to yet another set of maps
that don’t reflect their communities’ best interests.

Written by Jarratt Applewhite, a fifty year resident of New Mexico who has been active in a range of good
government reform efforts. He is a current candidate for House District 50.(applewhite4nm.com;
Twitter.com/ApplewhiteFor50; facebook.com/applewhite4nm)

Originally published in NMPolitics.net on 12/3/17.