Redistricting by Elected Officials as Conflict of Interest

California's Proposition 11 raises an interesting conflict of interest
issue for local governments whose council members
represent districts. Proposition 11 is <span></span>"a plan to set up a 14-member
citizens commission to draw district boundaries for state Senate,
Assembly and Board of Equalization seats. State lawmakers currently
have that power."<br>

<br>
Should elected officials determine the composition of the districts
that elect them? In California, every major newspaper said no, and
Common Cause and the League of Women Voters said no. But the majority
party in the state said yes, and the minority party, which happens to
include the governor, who sponsored the proposition, said no. Changing
the rules will benefit the minority party, or so it feels. But it will
also benefit citizens, if enough people want minority party
representatives, but can't elect them because the majority party is
setting up districts that favor their candidates.<br>
<br>
This problem occurs with cities and counties, as well. Here's how
things stand in a few of them. New York City has a Districting
Commission appointed by the council, the party county committees, and
the mayor. In Atlanta, the council redistricts. In San Diego, a
Redistricting Commission is appointed by the Presiding Judge of the
Municipal Court. In Philadelphia, the council redistricts. In the
District of Columbia, the council redistricts. In Albuquerque, the
council appoints a committee, not to include council members, to make
recommendations to the council, and the mayor must approve the
redistricting plan. In Denver, the council redistricts via
ordinance.<br>
<br>
Chicago has an unusual, somewhat unwieldy system, which is set by <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=006500200Hprec.+…; target="”_blank”">a state law</a>. 80% of aldermen must approve a map or redistricting goes before the public in the form of a referendum. In 1990, the council could not agree on a map, the matter went to referendum, and then aldermen who opposed the map approved by the public sued, costing the city $10 million in litigation costs.<br>
<br>
So there are lots of approaches, but most of them include elected
officials in some capacity. As with ethics, good government advocates
agree that elected officials should not be involved. Unfortunately, the
personal interest that is being favored over the public interest here
is also a political interest, which is generally omitted from
government ethics, both for constitutional reasons and because elected
officials pass ethics codes.<br>
<br>
But redistricting is an important way by which elected officials benefit themselves and their party, and the conflicts
involved should be discussed when redistricting becomes an issue, when the press is interested in the issue and
when people are paying attention to it. Then good government groups can try to change the rules soon afterwards.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>