Politics Is in for a Face-Lift

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Jan 10, 2000 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

With the decennial census on the horizon, Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to calculate just which party will have the advantage in redistricting, who will control the state legislatures and what effect the ethnic vote will have on future policy-making.

Forecasting the future in politics often is a futile pursuit, yet the profession of political prognostication is predictably profitable. At the beginning of the third millennium, however, certain trends already are threatening to change the political landscape.

During the last decade, the national political scene witnessed the Democratic Party losing its majority mantle in the House of Representatives for the first rime in 40 years, as well as the election of a president who has chosen to govern via executive order rather than by popular demand, not to mention divide the nation over the course of his Senate impeachment trial. On the other hand, Congress has been unable to achieve any large-scale successes as more and more Americans retreat from politics to bask in the sunny economy. And, as the 20th century draws to a close, the emergence of a throng of third-party candidates is affecting the way the system operates.

What can be expected next? As Democrats and Republicans dig in their heels in preparation for the showdown set for Nov. 7, 2000, there is more at risk than the leadership of the House and Senate. Perhaps the most important issue at play is the outcome of the 2000 census and each party's respective ability to gain control of the state legislatures through control of the apportionment process.

The U.S. Constitution requires that, once every 10 years, the federal government count the number of Americans, after which the political map is changed accordingly. The Constitution requires that the House districts, now numbering 435, be of equal population; the task of reapportionment in each state falls into the eager laps of the legislators from the controlling party.

At present, the outlook for seizing control of the apportionment process is mixed: In 19 states, Democrats control both legislative chambers; in 17 states Republicans control both legislative chambers; and in 13 states the chambers are split. More importantly, the increasingly Republican-leaning states of Texas, Arizona, Florida and Georgia all are expected to gain seats due to their increasing populations, whereas Ohio, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New York, having lost population, are slated to lose in the redistricting game. Although political analysts directed their attention primarily to the GOP takeover of the House in 1994, the GOP's successes on the state level in winning control of the various legislatures and gubernatorial seats may bear more fruit for Republicans by providing them with the opportunity to shape the long-term political landscape in their image for the first time in decades.

"Basically [the shift] helps the Republicans -- with the significantly important countervailing caveat that they don't lose the referendum in California," says Michael Barone, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.

In fact, just such a caveat came to pass Dec. 13, 1999, when the California Supreme Court decided 5-2 to remove Proposition 24 from the March ballot. Prop 24 would have dealt with two issues: handing over to the courts the responsibility for reshaping the districts (taking it out of the Democrat-controlled Legislature's hands) and cutting state legislators' pay (a move intended to increase popularity at the polls). But the court issued California Democrats a stay of political execution by tossing out the initiative on the grounds it violated the state's constitution precisely by dealing with two, separate, distinct issues. A surefire gimmick led to a disaster.

With the California Democrats holding both Senate seats and a majority of House seats, the state Assembly, the state Senate and the governorship, Proposition 24 would have put the redistricting issue in the more neutral hands of the people. The importance of redistricting was underscored by the money that had been shoveled out to put it on the ballot: Led by antitax advocate Ted Costa, nearly $2 million was spent, of which approximately $1.3 million came from the National Republican Congressional Committee, or NRCC.

Even now, some state party members are considering launching another campaign to place a modified initiative on the California ballot. In addition, the Republican National Committee, or RNC, poured nearly $500,000 into the Virginia state elections in November to lay claim triumphantly to the Virginia Legislature. Barone views the long-term gains from redistricting as falling to the Republican Party but says, "There is always the problem that if you spread your vote too thin, you may lose seats."

Having seen the tides turning against the Democrats in Texas and Virginia in the last decade, several Democratic organizations involved in preparing the House for the impending redistricting, such as IMPAC 2000, also are investing heavily in supporting Democratic candidates in the state legislatures.