Editorial: Build a better district map

Once every 10 years elected officials in the state of New York get together to decide which voters they'd like to represent. Admittedly, that sounds crazy in a country where we extol the wonders of democracy and the ability of voters to shape their government. But most of the time, elections are over long before voters get to the polls, decided by the maneuvering that determines political boundaries.

In the 2006 New York State legislative elections, not one single incumbent in the Senate or the Assembly was defeated by a challenger. Logically, that either means the citizens of this state have tremendous love and respect for the legislature, or the game is rigged.

In other words, the game is rigged.

The 2006 elections were not an anomaly. Over the past five elections for Assembly and State Senate, the incumbent re-election rate averaged 96 percent. Few of the races were even close. The average margin of victory in 2010 was over 50 percent, a gap so extraordinary it brings to mind the vote tallies of elections held in countries where real opposition to the ruling party is illegal.

And that's just for the incumbents who faced the obstacle of an opponent. About 20 percent -- again, think faux elections in dictatorship-driven lands -- ran unopposed.

It's these legislators who, in the wake of every census, draw the lines for their own districts and for congressional seats. It is, in many cases, the ability to draw these lines that makes the incumbents so unassailable. Redistricting is such a high-stakes game to members of the House of Representatives -- particularly this year, as New York loses two House seats -- that most have hired lobbyists in Albany to sway legislators their way.

When drawing the lines for county legislative districts, the incumbents again have all the say, and like state legislators, generally say they want to stay.

There is an aspect of Democrats-versus-Republicans in redistricting power games, but even stronger is the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of incumbency, which encourages elected officials in Albany to protect their fellow office holders in return for their own inviolate district. And power over the lines is a great way for Senate and Assembly leaders to keep members in line. Those who don't vote as leaders say can find their districts have disappeared, or changed so dramatically they can no longer win them. Those who have power work to keep it, and keep it away from others: both the newcomers who would challenge them, and the voters who deserve a fair and equitable process.

The current system is undemocratic and unproductive. It creates an entrenched political class that cannot be challenged. It disenfranchises voters.

It can and should be improved, replaced, as much as possible, with a nonpartisan system of districting that doesn't favor parties or incumbents. Instead, it should empower the people.

Going back on a promise

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, many of the politicians and public policy professionals who visited Newsday's editorial board wanted to talk nonpartisan redistricting. So did we.

Practically all the legislators in New York had signed a pledge, tirelessly promoted by former New York City Mayor Ed Koch and his New York Uprising campaign, saying they would support a nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission. Then-gubernatorial candidate Andrew M. Cuomo was on board too, saying he would veto any plan that didn't meet that standard.

But after the results of the 2010 elections came in, the message from many of the then safely re-elected politicians changed dramatically.

This was particularly true of Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) and his caucus, every one of whom had signed Koch's pledge. Postelection -- and with a tiny, 32-30 majority that might only be maintained by a serious act of partisan gerrymandering -- Skelos walked away from the pledge. He said the nonpartisan changes demanded a constitutional amendment and couldn't be instituted before 2022.

And many elected officials began arguing not that they didn't want a nonpartisan process to create sensible, competitive maps -- but that such a thing, which they'd pledged to make a reality just a few months before, was an actual physical impossibility. The refrain was that setting election boundaries is so incredibly complex that there's no way to do it without creating ridiculously misshapen districts that disenfranchise some people and swell the sway of others.

Yet in the age of computers, it isn't that hard anymore.

Still, you can't divorce politics

To say that it's possible to create fair and reasonable districts is not the same thing as saying they will be totally apolitical. Every consideration of how to carve them relates to political philosophy.

For instance, deciding whether it's more important to respect town lines or create majority-minority districts is a philosophical question. And in a non-gerrymandered map, deciding whether any specific effort should be made to keep minorities all in one district is surprisingly complex. Is such an act empowerment or racism?

Should there be an all-Asian district? Why? Why not? Hispanic? Black? Should the line create two districts that are 50 percent black, or one district that is 100 percent black? Which is fairer? Is either?

There will always be more than one way to draw the maps, and politics will always play into it. But that doesn't mean the entire process needs to be set up to protect incumbents and empower parties. It's already gotten better in other states, like California, where nonpartisan redistricting has become a reality. It can get better here, too.

Starting Monday, Newsday Opinion and Newsday.com will host a website dedicated to redistricting in New York. Find it tomorrow at newsday.com/ UMAPNY, which will give you the same sophisticated tools professional map designers have. The site will be updated regularly, so you can watch the latest developments and commentary on the New York process.

The maps drawn up by the designated legislative committee will be out soon. It's almost certain they'll be a Rorschach blot of political intrigues designed to preserve the status quo. The politicians will say there is no other way to do it, that the process is too complex to achieve with fair and simple lines.

But you'll know better.