Independent Redistricting (and Ethics) Works

In ethics, there are two basic approaches: (1) an ends-based
approach, also referred to as utilitarian or consequentialist; and
(2) a means-based approach, also referred to as rules-based or
deontological. Government officials, and most people when speaking
about government, generally use the former, while government ethics
uses the latter. This causes a lot of problems.<br>
<br>
Therefore, it is very heartening to see an academic taking a
critical look at ends-based approaches to solving a governmental
problem. The academic is Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos (U. of Chicago
Law School), the problem is redistricting, and the name of his draft
paper is "<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2230955&quot; target="”_blank”">The Consequences of Consequentialist Criteria</a>."<br>
<br>

Stephanopoulos argues that the two approaches to redistricting that
have been popular recently are consequentialist. He calls the first
the "partisan fairness approach." It requires that redistricting
plans treat the major parties symmetrically in terms of the
conversion of votes to seats. The "competitiveness approach,"
requires that districts be as electorally competitive as practicable.<br>
<br>
His research shows that neither of these approaches works, using
their own criteria. That is, "partisan fairness requirements have
not made district plans more symmetric in their treatment of the
major parties. Nor have competitiveness requirements made elections
more competitive."<br>
<br>
However, he finds that a third, non-consequentialist approach – the
neutral redistricting commission or a court – has been successful
in terms of both partisan fairness and making elections more
competitive. In other words, focusing on means and process rather than results
can sometimes get better results. His principal example is South
Australia's independent redistricting commission.<br>
<br>
Stephanopoulos's decision to analyze a non-consequentialist approach in terms
of its consequences shows how hard it is justify such approaches. I
prefer the ethics approach, which is how I have been looking at
local redistricting since <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/556&quot; target="”_blank”">my first blog post on
the topic</a> in 2008. When elected officials, or those they
appoint, either do redistricting themselves or choose the body that
makes the determinations, they create an appearance that they are
looking out for their own interests rather than the best interests
of the public. That is why, even if the results were no different,
it is better to have a neutral redistricting commission, selected by
non-officials. Better results is icing on the cake (without the calories or the cholesterol).<br>
<br>
Redistricting may be on the outskirts of government ethics. But the same arguments can be made for a neutral, independent ethics commission, completely outside the control of officials under its jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---