Lubbock Left

Today the Texas redistricting panel met with its largest crowd yet, according to the A-J. We have some screwy districts out here (including TX-19, quite possibly the most gerrymandered district in the state), so I’m not surprised that a record number of people had something to say to the panel.

Check out the latest from Democratic Party candidate for HD84 Carol Morgan, summarizing her testimony before the redistricting panel this afternoon:

I have learned as both a parent and as an educator, that when you have two spoiled children fighting over one toy, you take the toy away. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican Senator, in 2009, attempted to pass a bill which would take redistricting out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of a bipartisan committee. This bill did not pass by one vote. Thirteen other states have done this, thus freeing up lawmakers for more important work that serves their constituents. I do hope that a new version of this bill passes in Texas before we have to revisit this issue in 2020. We need to take the toy away.

I would like to see lines across the Panhandle drawn more like my District 84, sensible, compact and competitive. But I have to say that the huge amputation that runs through the center of town, which was drawn to both prevent the election of one candidate and facilitate the election of another is not the way that representation should be drawn. Everyone knows full well why this was done, but no one talks about it. It’s the elephant in the room that everyone chooses to ignore.

If you cannot put aside differences to serve the people you pledged to serve, then shame on you, but most of all, shame on all of us for continuing to tolerate it.

I think Carol Morgan is correct in calling for a nonpartisan committee to take over the work of redistricting. We need to remove the conflicts of interest from the redistricting process. (On this morning’s radio show, we had a similar topic with the County Commission’s self-awarded raise. That obvious conflict of interest could be solved by having raises take effect for the next — not for the current — officeholders.) We can run around all day talking about “one man, one vote,” but everyone knows that districts tend to be drawn to favor the incumbent. Worse, precise targeting technology makes gerrymandering very efficient indeed.

Thoughts?