Redistricting Has Consequences

It has been noted that I write about redistricting quite a bit.  That's true.  Redistricting is an important matter and one that does not get enough attention.  Here's why it's important.  The Republican State Leadership Committee released their REDMAP 2012 Summary Report.  Here's an excerpt:

As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data. 

The rationale was straightforward:  Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.  Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

We get one shot at this every ten years.  And we blow it.  And that's why we end up with bizarrely drawn gerrymandered districts.  And that's why I keep harping about it.  As long as our districts can be drawn for political purposes they will.