Redistricting machinations

New York’s State legislators are offering the promise of a constitutional amendment to correct the redistricting problems they seem unwilling to correct themselves. But is that amendment the answer? Two newspapers think not.

From the New York Times:

To seal the deal with Mr. Cuomo, legislative leaders have offered to support a flawed constitutional amendment they claim would reform things in time for the 2022 election. That is far too long to wait. And this “reform” is no better than what New York has now and would enshrine some of the worst practices in the Constitution.

It calls for a 10-member bipartisan commission to draw all of the maps, but an even number almost ensures gridlock. There is no clear way to assure that each district has the same number of voters. It makes no mention of a 2010 law requiring prisoners be counted at their homes, not in “prison gerrymandered” districts. If the Legislature doesn’t like what this group does, the whole shebang goes back to — the Legislature. When it comes to protecting their cushy jobs, Albany’s lawmakers will never keep their promises of reform.

From the Times Union:

The trade-off, such as it is, would be a constitutional amendment to make the redistricting process marginally more independent and nonpartisan. But the amendment the Legislature has offered to pass would leave it pretty much in control of redistricting. Some reform!

Moreover, such a constitutional amendment requires votes by two consecutive legislatures and then the public. So this Legislature could vote for the amendment, and the next Legislature could kill it. And since most of the lawmakers who broke their 2010 oath will probably be re-elected this fall, thanks to the gerrymandered maps that they’ve drawn, why shouldn’t we figure they’ll go back on their word again? Why trust them now?

As we have noted previously, perhaps, if more people contacted their representatives to express outrage, legislators might be more responsive. You can be one of those people by contacting the Senate switchboard at 518-455-2800 and the Assembly switchboard at 518-455-4100. Feel free to tell someone you read about it here.

Redistricting, redistricting

Gerald Benjamin, former director of the Center for the New York State and Local Government Studies at SUNY's Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, has written an article about the current status of our on-going redistricting experience.

The partisan character of the Legislature's work has not just been asserted, it's been clearly demonstrated in an analysis by the Center for Urban Research. So there is a basis for judgment and comparison. It's clear that competitive districts can be drawn. They can meet federal one person, one vote and Voting Rights Act requirements and take account of the state's regional and demographic communities of interest — and result in fairer elections.

. . . we must pass a state constitutional amendment placing redistricting beyond the reach of change by the ordinary state legislative process. We need to entirely replace what are an outdated, arcane, substantially invalid constitutional provisions.

A constitutional amendment must provide for an independent commission with an odd number of members (5 to 13) appointed by a diversity of authorities exclusively from a pool of interested citizens. Lobbyists, elected officials and those directly or indirectly dependent upon them for employment could not serve. Members would reflect the political and demographic diversity of the state.

They would have a clear timetable and employ clear criteria, including in order of priority: compliance with federal requirements, observance of the integrity of the state's regions — defined by its natural and built environment — and recognition within regions of social and demographic communities of interest.

As we have noted previously, perhaps, if more people contacted their representatives to express outrage, legislators might be more responsive. You can be one of those people by contacting the Senate switchboard at 518-455-2800 and the Assembly switchboard at 518-455-4100. Feel free to tell someone you read about it here.

Worse than we thought?

The Times Union has an article today (from The New York World) that shows how partisan the redistricting process has been in New York:

The new boundaries for state Senate and Assembly districts proposed by New York's legislative redistricting task force would increase the number of seats held by the majority parties in both chambers, an analysis by The New York World has found.

In the closely contested state Senate, the Republican Party's precarious 32-to-30 majority would expand to 34 to 29 if each 2012 voter cast his or her ballot in support of the same party as in the 2010 elections.

In the Assembly, the comfortable 98-to-50 advantage the Democrats enjoyed following 2010's elections would also increase, to 102-to-48.

"You can't put a good face on this," said Douglas Muzzio, a professor at the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College and an expert in New York politics. "It gives real empirical weight to the argument that there is total partisanship in redistricting."

We realize that some people may find this discouraging. However, we think it should energize those of us who favor a less partisan process. Since one of the co-chairs of the task force that devised this scheme is a local legislator, we suggest that you call his office to express your dissatisfaction. That legislator is Jack McEneny, and his office telephone number 518-455-4178.

Redistricting cynicism?

City & State, the only publication in New York devoted solely to covering government and politics in the city and state, has an interesting article about the status and future of redistricting, and it does not seem promising.

This was the year redistricting was supposed to work. Guess what?

Everyone but the winners in New York State’s unfair system of drawing election districts agrees New Yorkers deserve better. This was the year they were supposed to get it. But nothing has changed.

In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, the Legislature has once again drawn maps that will all but guarantee they have to split the spoils of running the Assembly and Senate.

The lawmakers who promised to do better went back on their word. The governor who promised to veto unfair lines may be going soft. The good-government groups that hoped for change have once again been ignored.

[snip]

Cuomo and the Senate Republicans will survive the lie, experts predict. Republicans have vastly outraised Democrats in Senate fund-raising, and with the defection of four Democrats from the conference, there is little chance they will regain the majority. Part of an announced compromise could include a constitutional amendment, but many people doubt it will pass.

“It’s a smokescreen,” one prominent Republican said. “They always say ‘constitutional amendment’ when they want a good talking point. It has to pass two consecutive Legislatures and then put it on the ballot. There’s no way that ever happens. I wouldn’t fall for that. That doesn’t happen. That just doesn’t happen.”

Cuomo, he said, will say he did all he could.

“He throws his hands up, life goes on, next issue. A couple of bad editorials come out, the public doesn’t give a damn, and then you’ve got 10 years to recover from it,” the Republican said. “If you polled, you’d be lucky if you got one or two percent of the people that care about that.”

The consultant paused a moment, and then apologized for sounding so cynical, before predicting the way it would go down over the next few weeks.

“It’ll be two days of outrage,” the source said, “and then it’s on to the budget.”

Perhaps, if more people contacted their representatives to express outrage, legislators might be more responsive. You can be one of those people by contacting the Senate switchboard at 518-455-2800 and the Assembly switchboard at 518-455-4100. Feel free to tell someone you read about it here.

Redistricting reactions

The proposed new legislative districts drawn up by legislative task force on redistricting were released last week and the response was, shall we say, not enthusiastic.

They have been called maps that resemble an art project at Satan's Kindergarten and clearly the most gerrymandered lines in recent New York history.

Common Cause says that the proposed districts egregiously disadvantage minority communities, abuse the federally mandated principle of 'one person one vote', and violate the constitutional provision to avoid crossing county lines whenever possible.

The Daily News opines, "Nothing less than the future of representative democracy in New York is on the line as the Legislature establishes new district lines based on the latest census."

There is more, much more, that we will be commenting on in coming days. For now, however, read these reactions and think about what you are going to do to restore fairness to the redistricting process. As people of faith, we believe that this is a matter of justice that must be addressed.

Asian-American voters disenfranchised?

Are Asian-American voters in New York disenfranchised by the way election districts are set up in the state? Members of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund think so. According to an article in the Daily News:

Asian-American voters in Queens and Brooklyn sued the governor and other state officials this week, saying their voting power is unfairly limited by the way the state’s legislative districts are drawn.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint Wednesday on behalf of four New Yorkers, arguing they must get equal political representation when the state rejiggers district lines after the most recent census.

"The current district lines are invalid under the U.S. Constitution and state law because Asian Americans' votes count less than the votes of other New Yorkers,” said Glenn Magpantay, director of AALDEF's Democracy Program.

The way lines are currently drawn, AALDEF argues, the city’s largest Asian-American neighborhoods are split up into different districts, breaking up what could be a powerful voting block.

While New York City’s Asian-American population spiked by 32% to over one million in the past ten years, according to the census, there is only one Asian-American representative in the entire state legislature — Flushing Assemblywoman Grace Meng.

Because the lines are currently drawn by a state task force largely made up of legislators themselves, critics say pols simply try to move boundaries to help their own party’s interest, sometimes creating wacky shapes.

The rest of the article is here.

Support grows for independent redistricting

A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows that support for independent redistricting among New York state voters has risen to 52 percent. Frankly, we are disappointed that it is not higher. From the news release:

An independent commission with no ties to the New York State Legislature should draw district lines from which legislators are elected, 52 percent of voters say in a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This is up slightly from 48 percent in an October 26 survey. Another 27 percent support a commission with some legislative input and 11 percent support the current system where state legislators create election districts.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo should veto any legislative districting plan that is not created by an independent commission, voters say 45 - 37 percent in the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University poll.

"Drawing new legislative and congressional district lines will be high on Albany's 2012 agenda. Quinnipiac University has been tracking this sleeper issue for some time and we see support for an independent commission to draw the lines is edging up," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "By a decisive 56 - 36 percent, New York State voters say keep legislators away from this so-called independent commission."

The rest of the release is here.

Another perspective on redistricting

Bill Hammond at the Daily News has an excellent column today on how Albany politicians have rigged districts to serve their own ends. It is an issue we have addressed many times in the past, including here, here and here. We will continue to discuss redistricting in the future. In the meantime, read this:

A new report from Citizens Union should throw a scare into all New Yorkers who still believe in democratic government.

The 114-year-old watchdog group has crunched the numbers and confirmed what your gut was already telling you: The disconnect between Albany lawmakers and the people they supposedly represent has gone from bad to much, much worse.

Because the powers that be have so thoroughly rigged the game for their own advantage, most members of the Legislature routinely return to office every other year after elections that have been reduced to Soviet-style jokes.

Nine out of 10 cruise by comfortable margins of 10 points or more. Almost a third are complete shoo-ins, facing either no major-party contender or no opponent at all.

And the races have gotten dramatically less competitive in recent decades, with the average margin of victory soaring from a ridiculous 33 percentage points to a laughable 51 points last year.

In 1968, just 1% of legislative races were uncontested. Last year, that number had skyrocketed to 19%.

Little wonder that the reelection rate for incumbents was 96% over the last decade — and 100% in 2006.

And little wonder that New York’s election turnout has dropped below 35%, the fourth lowest in the country. Voters know a con when they smell one.

The report traces these sickening trends to the heart of Albany’s incumbency-protection racket: the brazenly partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts.

The full column is here.

New York State Redistricting Process Draws Lawsuit

Thomas Kaplan at The New York Times is reporting that "a group of community leaders has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to take control of the contentious redistricting process."

The lawsuit, which names Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders as defendants, asserts that the officials’ effort to redraw Assembly, Senate and Congressional district boundaries to reflect the most recent census “has stalled and threatens to throw the state’s 2012 elections into a quagmire absent court intervention.”

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, follows similar legal challenges in more than a dozen states that are also in the midst of the often-bitter process of redrawing districts. In New York, it is the first major face-off in what seems likely to devolve into a chaotic legal battle, as well as a major fight in the legislative session that will begin in January.

A task force is working on drawing a set of political maps for consideration by the Legislature. But Mr. Cuomo has said he would veto those maps, because the panel is not independent. He has called on the Legislature to approve his plan for an independent commission; it has declined.

Redistricting continues to be an important issue, and we urge everyone to contact their legislators and ask for a process that does more than protect incumbents. The rest of the article is here.

Redistricting: the musical

The good folks at ProPublica have made a music video to address the complicated issue of redistricting. Thanks to Gannett’s Jon Campbell for posting it here. You are going to love this.

Do-it-yourself redistricting

Costas Panagopoulos, an associate professor of political science and director of the 2012 New York Redistricting Project at Fordham University, will be in Albany tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 1) to host a panel discussion and demonstration of software for redistricting from 2 to 4 p.m. in Hearing Room A of the Legislative Office Building in Albany. The easy-to-use software will be used in a student competition to design fair and equitable redistricting maps. The event is free and open to the public.

As he notes today in an o-ed piece in today’s Times Union:

Legislative redistricting has long been marred by backroom deal-making and a lack of public input. By restricting public access, politicians have been able to gerrymander districts to benefit themselves and their party.

Every 10 years, district lines are redrawn to reflect population and demographic changes. In theory, this guarantees that all citizens are fairly and equally represented through their elected officials. However, partisan gerrymandering often slices communities apart and creates districts that fail to ensure effective minority representation. Invariably, this dynamic contributes to partisan gridlock that paralyzes the political and policy making process.

As the state Legislature is in the midst of drawing its own lines, there is real concern about how the new maps will be produced. In past redistricting, both parties have joined to institutionalize partisan control of the Assembly and the Senate by creating fewer competitive races. Partisan control of the redistricting process has resulted in badly contorted districts that neglect communities and preclude competitive elections.

For all kinds of communities to be fairly represented in government, redistricting must be accountable to the communities being represented. The process must be transparent, accountable and open to public engagement.

Now, with the availability of user-friendly, free software, every citizen can have the tools to produce legislative maps. "The 2012 New York Redistricting Project", a collaborative effort between the Fordham Center of Electoral Politics and Democracy and the Public Mapping Project, seeks to promote these mapping tools, by training the public to use them effectively and become involved in redistricting.

We urge you to show up for the presentation on Tuesday, but, in the meantime, you can read more of his op-ed here.

Differing philosophies on how to redistrict

Felicia Krieg of The Legislative Gazette has a story in this week’s newspaper about redistricting and an issue that should concern all of us, i.e., the difference in populations between legislative districts. According to the paper:

The populations of current Senate and Assembly districts are too inconsistent, according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and NYPIRG, and both are hoping to reform this in a bill currently before the Legislature. But another good government group, Common Cause, is warning that more flexibility in a district's population may be needed in order to keep communities of interest intact and "reasonably compact."

In the Redistricting Reform Act of 2011, the governor recommends a plus or minus 1 percent standard deviation in a given district. And an Oct. 7 report on redistricting released by the New York Public Interest Research Group supports the governor's recommendation. It calls the plus or minus 1 percent proposed maximum standard deviation "not only desirable, but feasible and doable."

Legislative district lines are redrawn every ten years, based on U.S. Census data. The last of the 12 public hearings held by the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), charged with drawing new legislative districts based on population, was held on Oct. 5. Cuomo has said repeatedly that he would veto any new district lines drawn by legislators.

Standard deviation in a Senate or Assembly district's population shows how many percentage points the population is away from the population average of all the districts. Currently, Senate and Assembly districts in New York can vary as much as plus or minus 5 percent from the average district size.

While Common Cause/NY supports Cuomo's bill and NYPIRG's desire to carefully examine the past problems there have been with redistricting and some solutions to remedy them, Common Cause is recommending a plus or minus 3 percent maximum deviation so there is more leeway to keep communities of interest and municipalities intact and ensure relatively compact districts.

"While numerical equivalency is a key component of real redistricting reform, we are concerned that it comply with, not cost, other important good government criteria: maintaining communities of interest, keeping cities, towns, counties, and villages intact whenever possible, and drawing districts that are reasonably compact," said Susan Lerner, executive director for Common Cause/NY.

Lerner offered Albany County as an example to illustrate a problem with drawing districts using a plus or minus 1 percent standard deviation. The population of Albany County is 304,204, with a standard deviation of minus 2.57 percent. It makes more sense, Lerner said, to keep the county intact as one Senate district and have a greater standard deviation, rather than breaking it up to adhere to the plus or minus 1 percent rule.

The differences between several good government groups are presented in the rest of the article, which is here.

More on redistricting

Last week, Jimmy Vielkind of the Times Union reported:

When LATFOR, the legislative panel charged with the controversial redistricting process, held its latest hearing Wednesday on Long Island, several witnesses drew attention to the area around Brentwood, which in contrast to wealthier communities in Suffolk County is denser and has a higher proportion of black and Latino residents.

The area is split among four Senate districts -- all occupied by Republicans.

According to researchers at the good-government group Common Cause, the neighborhood is one of the clearest examples of partisan gerrymandering. It illustrates a process called "cracking," in which certain pockets of voters -- often members of racial minorities -- are parceled off to several districts so their collective voting tendencies are diluted.

"When Hispanics march along Fifth Avenue in Brentwood in our annual parade they have a leg in one district and another in the adjacent district," said Assemblyman Phil Ramos, D-Central Islip. His district was created in the last round of redistricting, in 2002, from three other districts. He was the first Latino elected to the Legislature from Suffolk County; Latinos now comprise 14.9 percent of the voting-age population in the county.

While saying his election has helped steer more services to the area he represents -- school aid, a new state park -- Ramos said he believes courts are the best route to achieve minority representation. The federal Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination against racial or ethnic minorities in any electoral practice, including redistricting. The federal Department of Justice can sue to enforce its provisions, and three New York counties -- Brooklyn, Bronx and parts of Manhattan -- require pre-approval from the DOJ before implementing any electoral changes.

But Suffolk County lacks the requirement, as does Queens, which has seen an increase in its Asian-American population around Flushing, currently split into two districts represented by white senators -- and Monroe County, where majority-minority Rochester is split between two white senators.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat who is black, said a more independent process would produce better results. He accused Republicans who have long controlled the Senate as being "particularly masterful" at cracking in Suffolk, Nassau and Monroe counties.

A memo written in 2001 by a Senate Republican staffer -- recently recirculated by Senate Democrats -- referred to minority areas on Long Island as "politically undesirable."

Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union, previously wrote about the issue of redistricting. He does not present a flattering picture of our legislators.

Almost everybody in the Legislature -- 60 out of 62 senators, and 121 out of 150 Assembly members -- promised last year to support independent redistricting, rather than leaving it to the two-party legislative commission that has done the job before. But most of them lied: No independent redistricting plan emerged from the Legislature this year. So the same old system -- Democrats drawing lines favoring Democrats, Republicans drawing lines favoring Republicans -- is rolling toward an ugly finish.

Cuomo has said over and over that he will veto redistricting that isn't done by an independent group. Will he, really?

A veto could send redistricting to the federal courts, where delays caused by legal maneuvering could lead to months of political chaos. So a Cuomo veto might mess with his mantra: While it would be both predictable and disciplined, it would border on unreasonable.

Still, to not deliver on the veto threat would be to abandon a key piece of the reform agenda that Cuomo promised New Yorkers. And when you're as popular as Cuomo is, you can handle the sort of onslaught that might follow a veto.

Recently Cuomo has signaled that he is open to nonpartisan redistricting approved by the Legislature under some conditions -- for example, if it recognizes communities of interest, such as ethnic and cultural similarities, and if it is based on demographics, rather than incumbent legislators' political needs. That's just the sort of compromise suggested by Common Cause, the good government lobby.

Who Pays for Redistricting?

In the American political system, there is perhaps no better way of measuring the importance of an issue than by looking at how much money is being spent on it, except, perhaps, the lengths that people will go to insure that no one knows who is contributing that money. By that measurement, redistricting must be a very important issue.

An investigation by ProPublica, a Pulitzer prize-winning, independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, reveals the money and the contributors in redistricting fights across the nation. For example:

Skillful redistricting can, of course, help create Republican or Democratic districts, but it can also grace incumbents with virtually guaranteed re-election or leave them with nearly no chance at all. In the process, it can also create seats almost certain to be held by minorities or break those same groups apart, ensuring that they have almost no voice.

But it’s not cheap, and that’s where corporations and other outside interests come in. They can provide the cash for voter data, mapping consultants and lobbyists to influence state legislators, who are in charge of redistricting in most states. Outside interests can also fund the inevitable lawsuits that contest nearly every state's redistricting plan after it is unveiled.

In Minnesota, for instance, the Republicans’ legal efforts to influence redistricting are being financed through a group called Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting.

Fair Redistricting describes itself as independent, but it has much of its leadership in common with the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, a group with ties to the political empire of the Koch brothers, industrialists from Kansas who’ve spent millions funding conservative causes. The head of the Freedom Foundation, Annette Meeks, told ProPublica she has “no involvement” with Fair Redistricting. But both organizations’ tax filings list the same address: Meeks’ home address.

Fair Redistricting is registered under the name of her husband, Jack Meeks, who is also on the board of the Freedom Foundation. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Who is actually paying for Fair Redistricting’s lawsuit and lawyers? And what district lines are they pushing for? The group doesn’t have to say and has so far kept its finances and plans under wraps. Annette Meeks did not respond to questions about the group’s donors or its ties to the Koch brothers, but she said the group complies with all legal filing requirements. But the group’s public tax filings contain no information on its contributors.

The rest of the article is here.

More on redistricting

The New York Times has an editorial today on the current state of redistricting:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has taken a strong stand against gerrymandering. He put forward a good bill that would create an independent commission to draw political districts and promised to veto any new maps that are “partisan.” Albany’s pols are not giving up.

Mr. Cuomo’s bill went nowhere, despite the fact that a hefty majority of legislators signed a pledge in 2010 to support such a commission. The old-style task force is now drawing up maps, and the business-as-usual crowd is trying to figure out how to get around the veto threat.

The word on the street is that they may stall the release of the new maps for the 2012 election (and the decade to follow) until early next year. Then lawmakers can say it’s too late to use anything else.

Mr. Cuomo needs to fight back now. He should press the Legislature to create the real independent commission that was promised to the voters. If that fails —things don’t look promising — he should name his own commission to draw alternative maps, using the best redistricting practices outlined in his bill. Those include such basics as ensuring that each district has about the same number of voters, makes geographical sense and isn’t drawn to guarantee the election of one party or candidate.

The entire editorial is here. We suggest that you read it for another view on this important issue.

Update on redistricting

The issue of redistricting remains a hot topic at the Capitol, even if most New Yorkers have little idea about what it entails. The Leader, in Corning, has an editorial here that explains some of the issues:

So, the war of words has begun.

Rhetoric aside, redistricting is important to residents locally and statewide because it ultimately impacts the future political agenda - and possibly the pool of candidates - in any one particular area.

Over the last decade, the shift in the population towards the downstate area will change the Assembly and Senate boundaries which could weaken the political strength of the upstate region.

The state Senate, where Republicans tend to represent upstate interests and hold a narrow majority, could be most impacted by the outcome of redistricting. Conversely, the downstate region has the most to gain.

Congressional boundaries will also have to be reworked because the state is losing two seats in the House. That means our 29th Congressional District will change in some shape or form.

We appreciate Cuomo’s concern that the redistricting process will again be controlled by incumbents bent on maintaining the cores of their political strengths. One look at the current configuration of state and federal districts demonstrates that considerable gerrymandering has taken place in the past.

The state Senate has resisted establishing an independent commission that Cuomo favors and its leaders now claim there simply isn’t enough time to have a panel in place for the 2012 elections. The legislative commission has already started the first of 12 public hearings statewide.

We side with those who feel the Senate is again copping out. An independent commission could be established during a special legislative session that will likely be held later this summer that would give the process enough time to complete redistricting by the end of the year.

The Times Union in Albany has an editorial here that asks, “As the Legislature forges ahead with it’s same old, corrupt redistricting process, how can voters have faith in a system designed by people who openly break their word?”

And Capital, an online publication about how things work in New York, has a Q&A about what might be happening with our political leaders here.

Redistricting

As the Poughkeepsie Journal noted in a recent editorial:

District lines for state and congressional seats have to be redrawn every 10 years based on new census data; the state has an obligation to the public to do this right.

Historically, though, the process has been torturous and fraught with the worst in back-room politics. As a result, the public usually ends up with odd-shaped, bizarre political boundaries drawn, in part, to protect incumbents — and to give both Democrats and Republicans "safe" districts that are counter to fair and competitive elections.

The editorial writers at the Staten Island Advance enlarged on that theme here:

Under politics as usual in the state of New York, lawmakers have been choosing their own voters before voters get a chance to choose them. Members of the Legislature in Albany have been allowed to reshape election districts, including their own, every 10 years to protect themselves and their parties.

Such democracy in reverse recently was dubbed Charlie Sheen-style redistricting: It’s all about winning.

Now Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s effort to put a stop to the behind-closed-doors wheeling and dealing has become stalled by, of all things, politics.

What a surprise.

The issue of redistricting is an important one for all citizens, which is why the Commission on Peace and Justice is getting involved with it this year. We will be posting more information in coming days. In the meantime, here is a primer on the issues from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice. An excerpt:

Why does redistricting matter? Our representatives in local, state, and federal government set the rules by which we live. In ways large and small, they affect the taxes we pay, the food we eat, the air we breathe, the ways in which we make each other safer and more secure. Periodically, we hold elections to make sure that these representatives continue to listen to us. All of our legislators in state government, many of our legislators in local government, and most of our legislators in Congress are elected from districts, which divide a state and its voters into geographical territories. In most of these districts, all of the voters are ultimately represented by the candidate who wins the most votes in the district. The way that voters are grouped into districts therefore has an enormous influence on who our representatives are, and what policies they fight for. For example, a district composed mostly of farmers is likely to elect a representative who will fight for farmers’ interests, but a district composed mostly of city dwellers may elect a representative with different priorities. Similarly, districts drawn with large populations of the same race, or ethnicity, or language, or political party are more likely to elect representatives with the same characteristics.