|
The formal reason for redistricting is to (re)enfranchise voters, making every Representative accountable for an equal number of constituents and answerable to a roughly equal number of voters as all the rest in her/his state. It means that pro forma no voter is less, or more, able to determine the Representative(s) from her/his state than any other voter.
So redistricting is necessary periodically. But once all districts are settled to have equal numbers of constituents, further adjustments become superfluous unless results of a new census are adopted by the state government.
(The well known exception to this broad leeway to creating districts is when there is a history of de facto violation of equal representation rights of a substantial and distinctive recognizable group of voters in the state. Compliance with federal laws, contained within the VRA of 1964, is then the test.)
As a matter of government, revisiting of settled issues suggests the best interests of the constituency were misserved the first time or being sold out the second time- it suggests a failure of legislative and/or executive branches of government and tends to force resolution by the judiciary. In the case of the Colorado and Texas re-redistrictings, it's hard to see how honest courts can condone extraordinary redistricting outside of extraordinary circumstances when adequate districts have previously been established.
But maybe the courts will variously buy Beauprez's and/or DeLay's claims that sufficiently extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the dirty deeds done, or that there are loopholes in the laws involved. That's what gives this stuff some suspense.
|