What do you think? We’d love to hear your opinions on redistricting and representation in Utah.

From the Salt Lake Tribune…

Fair Boundaries

For the Fair Boundaries proposal to become law, its supporters must collect enough voter signatures on its petitions to place the initiative on the November 2010 ballot. The wrangling before the Supreme Court concerns the cost estimate that would appear in the petition and ballot language.

The Legislature hates the idea of giving part of its power to draw voting districts to an independent commission. The Fair Boundaries initiative would do just that. One way for legislators to kill the idea would be to convince voters that a commission would be too expensive, so we aren’t surprised that bureaucrats who work for the Legislature and governor have slapped a $1 million price tag on the proposed commission.

That number is based on the false premise that if the initiative were to become law, the Legislature and the commission would have to run two redistricting staffs parallel to each other. The Fair Boundaries supporters are contesting that dollar figure before the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that the cost estimate is inaccurate because it presumes a duplicative process when the language in the proposed law says that only one staff would be necessary. We believe that argument is correct.

Under the federal and state constitutions, the Legislature redraws the boundaries of congressional, legislative and state school board districts every 10 years following the U.S. census. The goal is to create districts with nearly equal numbers of voters in each, preserving equal representation for everyone. But there are many ways to draw those lines, and legislators often have a different goal in mind: preserving their own seats and maintaining their party’s control.

To prevent such gerrymandering, the Fair Boundaries initiative would set up an 11-member commission to redraw the boundaries. It would prepare an initial plan, convene public hearings around the state, then recommend a final plan to the Legislature. Lawmakers would then be required, in a special session, to vote the plan up or down. If the Legislature rejected the plan, it would have to prepare and adopt a plan of its own, applying the same standards that the law would require of the commission.

The $1 million figure is inaccurate because the initiative clearly states that the Legislature’s research staff also would serve the commission. Judging from past experience, it would probably produce numerous redistricting proposals. Even if the Legislature rejected the one favored by the commission, it would not have to start from scratch.

To claim otherwise ignores the plain language of the proposal.