The grassroots (and Gov. Arnold) are calling for an end to incumbent protection rackets from coast to coast. The New York Times
The politically charged methods that states use to draw Congressional districts are under attack by citizens groups, state legislators and the governor of California, all of whom are concerned that increasingly sophisticated map-drawing has created a class of entrenched incumbents, stifled electoral competition and caused governmental gridlock. Largely uncoordinated campaigns stretching from California to Massachusetts are pushing to end, or at least minimize, a time-honored staple of American politics: lawmakers drawing Congressional and legislative district maps in geographically convoluted ways to ensure the re-election of an incumbent or the dominance of a party… Analysts and party officials said the chances of an overhaul of redistricting were better than at any time in recent memory, given what they said was rising concern about a system that seems increasingly prone to political manipulation. In the 2004 Congressional elections, only 13 seats in the House changed hands, and four incumbents were defeated in the general election. In 2002, 82 percent of the races were decided by a margin of 20 percent or more, Common Cause said. My question is this: Where’s the institutional support for redistricting reform? We need a national nonprofit with in-house expertise in setting up independent commissions, running initiative campaigns, and so forth. Activists in each state shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. (Past posts on redistricting reform here.)