Home of Today's Common Sense

I must take issue with your editorial of June 26, entitles Perrymandering; not so much with the issue of whether gerrymandering is bad or good as I feel that since Texas became a State or for that matter since the U.S. became a Nation the voting districts have been redrawn, not just every 10 years as you suggest, but whenever the “club” in power, feels that it is in its interest to do so. There have been times when a legislator’s friends would redraw his district so he could move and still stay in power. There have been cases that previous clubs in power have redrawn districts when they perceived shifts in population voting trends, outside census periods even in Texas.
The difference is that the current “club” in power has never really been there before and wants its turn. The previous club believes that it has a sole right to determine voting districts because they have been able to do it in the past at will. The evidence of this is the current map. I do not see any consolidated regional districts; what I do see from all quarters is that all districts try to put pieces of the Valley in with pieces of the major metropolitan centers so that the valley does not have a cohesive voting block. The past ideal would be a number of long thin districts headed in Austin, San Antonio, or Houston where the representative would be from. What is really needed is a group of social anthropologists to study the total economic condition and divine the political perceptions of everyone in the U.S., and then exhibiting no personal prejudice, opinion or thought draw the lines every 10 years. Since this is not possible perhaps the gerrymandering every time the political teeter-totter tilts is the way to most effectively balance the equation.
This gerrymandering has in the past been accomplished for purely partisan reasons by groups of likeminded individuals in power not necessarily a consensus of the party in power and rarely if ever to provide for fair and equitable voting access to any socially disenfranchised group.
The long term results of these actions do not seem to benefit or hurt the constituency or any particular party. This is evidenced by fact that in spite of the best efforts of the Democratic Party, while in power for such a long time in Texas, to adjust the voting districts, Republicans still get elected, and lately in increasing numbers. It would only appear that changing the lines would only affect the incumbent individual in the next election. Public perceptions of the likelihood of a particular party’s abilities really affects voting patterns.
I also doubt seriously whether this would devastate the Valley’s representation in the Congress. It would affect who went there of course. Even though Congressman Ortiz lives in Corpus Christie and not in the Valley he has proven time and again that he represents all the people and has never failed the Valley and I would also expect that Congressman Hinojosa would do no less. If as is indicated by the editorial that Mr. Lucio would have a good chance at a Congressional seat, he would certainly represent us well. The weakness would of course be the loss of seniority and attendant benefits of any incumbent. This would indeed be a serious loss in the case of Congressman Ortiz who has become extremely senior. I still believe with that possible exception, the situation could be improved substantially by election of a member of the party in power or a very savy representative who can work with the party in power such as a Mr. Lucio.
Imagine if a Republican got elected, his goal would be to get re-elected and those that bring votes would cause him to listen to their interests. I believe that political realities would result in corrections of any weaknesses.
To make the assertion that Senator Lucio would have only his self-interest at heart, should he go along with the re-districting is reprehensible. I have noted from following his long career, though I do not share his political philosophy, that he has always had the best interests of the Valley at heart. If it takes going along in the redistricting issue, in the face of serious criticism, to accomplish some more important gain, I would have to applaud him for his courage.
Most important is that if we want better results in Austin and Washington, the representatives we send must have something better than 51% of 10% or 35% of the voters supporting them. That is saying that essentially 5.1% to 18% of the voters supported the representative in recent elections and probably fewer than 1% helped select them to run. How much political influence can be brought to bear when a situation like that exists. We need to vote – not stay at home thinking let the other guy do it and then complain when it comes out wrong.