Last week a bill (S1184) to amend Idaho’s redistricting law was introduced by Senate Pro Tem Geddes and cosponsored by House Speaker Denney.  Whether it will pass this session is problematic, but it heralds the beginning of the decennial dance known as redistricting. Actually, “dance” isn’t really the right analogy; “musical chairs” is more like it.  It is an issue that most of the public doesn’t care about but which overtly political interests (parties, interest groups and legislators) care about deeply.  A few key points:

1. State legislative and congressional district lines must be redrawn after every new census count to reflect population growth and shifts.  The census count will be done in 2010; the data are available by 2011 and the new district lines are drawn and in effect in time for the 2012 election.  

2. The Courts provide basic guiding principles (roughly the same population in each district; some basic protections for racial/ethnic minority interests, etc.) within the context of constitutional provisions within each state (in Idaho, this includes protecting county boundaries as much as possible).

3. Beyond that, each state decides for itself how the process of redistricting occurs.  In most states, the legislatures themselves do the redistricting (a system obviously fraught with self-interest).  But about a dozen states--mostly in the West and including Idaho—have turned the process over to “independent” redistricting commissions.  I wouldn’t characterize the commissions as truly independent (the members are appointed by various party interests, and parties work the various district proposals behind the scenes), but there are enough protections built into the system that it is certainly more independent and less self-interested than if the legislators were drawing the lines.

4. The approved plan, once accepted by the commission and the courts, defines the political landscape for the next decade—so there are long-term electoral consequences.  In states where the parties are evenly-matched, redistricting is a crucial process because it can advantage one party or another for the next ten years.  Idaho, not so much.

5. But there are still political consequences in Idaho.  Largely, these have to do with regional interests and with urban/suburban/rural interests and the relative power of each.  There will be some shifts in these configurations in Idaho because of the very uneven growth rates in different parts of the state.  Basically, southwest Idaho will pick up some seats, north central Idaho almost certainly will lose a few seats and eastern Idaho and the Magic Valley will probably have about the same number of seats or perhaps lose a few.

6. Within regions, there will be some important shifts in the rural/urban character of the districts.  In particular, the suburban areas of Ada, Canyon and Kootenai counties are the big winners—largely at the expense of the smaller towns and rural parts of those counties.  But there are some other traditionally small towns like Ammon and Rexburg in eastern Idaho that will become more important in the next redistricting. The traditional “big cities”—Boise, Idaho Falls and Pocatello—will not.  

Recently, population estimates for 2008 were released by the Census Bureau for counties, and by the regional planning association (COMPASS) for cities in Ada and Canyon counties.  Since population in-migration has slowed with the economic downturn, these 2008 figures are likely to be pretty close to the official 2010 census figures.  Next time, we’ll look at the numbers and discuss the implications.

Gary Moncrief
Professor of Political Science and a University Foundation Research Scholar at Boise State University