More Commentary

• Commentary: Bill aims to help American Indians in urban areas
• Commentary: Albuquerque Public Schools just can't admit they let down the children of Navajo Elementary
• Commentary: Volunteer vets provide animal care to New Mexico's pueblos and reservations

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Albuquerque Old Town
• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

"Gerrymandering eats at our right to vote" is the title of a Tribune editorial (Dec. 16) concerning two congressional redistricting plans being talked about prior to the 2007 legislative session.

The Tribune's premise for the editorial attacking the redistricting plans is based primarily political idealism, which for the most part I tend to agree with. But sometimes, this being one of them, idealism needs to be tempered with all of the facts.

The editorial does not address the 17,000-plus American Indians who were gerrymandered - there's that word again - out of the their district in the northern congressional district and placed in the southern congressional district.

Many of the disenfranchised American Indians were Navajos stripped from other Navajo-speaking peoples and placed in the southern district. This was done without a second thought as to the political, sociological and fiscal differences these American Indians have with the majority of the district, which contains communities such as Hobbs, Roswell, Carlsbad, Artesia and Las Cruces. The populations of these cities contain less than 1 percent American Indian populations.

This gerrymandering was done with rural Roosevelt County, whose economy is tied to Roswell's and Hobbs', only 90 miles away. But Roosevelt was moved into the northern congressional district, with counties such as Rio Arriba, Taos, San Miguel and McKinley, with which Roosevelt has very little in common.

This gerrymandering not only served to diminish the political strength of the 17,000 American Indians moved into the 2nd Congressional District, but it also diminished American Indian voting strength in the northern district by nearly 25 percent.

The Tribune didn't mention that this was the basic premise of Plan B. It just called the plan partisan pandering and did not explain that the plan remedied a gerrymander.

Now for some history on congressional redistricting to give everyone a better idea of the reasons behind these redistricting plans.

The 1992 Legislature approved a redistricting plan that moved 8,000 American Indians and 7,000 Hispanics from Cibola County, as well as communities of Los Lunas and Belen, into the 2nd Congressional District, in an attempt to create a Democratic district in the south.

What actually happened was that voter participation in Cibola and Valencia counties dropped below their pre-1990 congressional turnout percentages - at an even higher level than other counties. And the turnout has dropped each election since - except in 2004, when turnout spiked throughout the country.

The most significant reason for the drops in voter participation in both counties is that neither county shares much common ground with the vast majority of the other counties in the southern, 2nd Congressional District. It is very difficult to get interested in an election when the largest communities in the district are over 150 miles away and, in some cases, more than 300 miles away.

In 2001, the Legislature passed a congressional redistricting plan, but Gov. Gary Johnson vetoed it, and redistricting was off to the courts. Judge Frank Allen Jr. took the plan of least change, one drawn by an out-of-state Republican consultant. This plan moved another 8,000-plus Navajos from southern McKinley County and placed them in the 2nd Congressional District, further diminishing support of both those who were moved to the southern district and those remaining in the northern district.

Again, this plan was approved, with nearly 17,000 ranchers and farmers in Roosevelt County, 90 miles away from Roswell or Hobbs, who were moved into the northern 3rd Congressional District, which doesn't make much sense.

The Tribune calls Plans A and B sour grapes. But in actuality Plan B corrects the gerrymanders of 1992 and 2001 that diminished the political strengths of American Indians throughout the state.

I'm going to quote The Tribune one more time, but with a caveat: "Democrats should show some spine and respect the will of the people." That's a statement with which I agree - but a statement I would like to change just a bit. It should say: Democrats should show some spine and respect for the voters and fix these obvious voter inequities.

As for the planned changes in the 1st Congressional District: Precinct 31, the Tohajalee reservation, would be moved into the 3rd Congressional District with nearly the remainder of the northern New Mexico reservations. The 1st Congressional District would pick up three conservative Bernalillo County precincts in Paradise Hills. It also would pick up the Corrales precincts in Sandoval County, which have little in common with the remainder of the 3rd Congressional District. The 1st District also would pick up Los Lunas and Belen, both bedroom communities of Albuquerque, 20 and 30 miles away, respectively, and both many hundreds of miles from Hobbs, Las Cruces or Roswell. The 1st District would gives up to the 2nd District rural Torrance County and the rural Bernalillo County mountain precincts.

The Tribune talks about rejiggering the boundaries to give the Democrats all the marbles in the 1st District. The problem is that The Tribune didn't look at the numbers.

Both plans A and B increase Democratic performances by only 1.6 percent, according to Research & Polling, Inc. Looking at the history of elections in the 1st District, the victory margin for Republican Rep. Heather Wilson has been ranging from 8 to 10 percent - much greater than the 1.6 percent by which either of these plans would improve Democratic performance. Only in the most recent election has Wilson's margin of victory fallen below the 1.6 percent that these plans would increase Democratic performance.

All either plan would do is give what would have to be a very strong Democratic candidate an almost even chance that the election could go either way.

Let us remedy the problems of American Indian voter disenfranchisement caused by the 1992 and 2001 gerrymanders, and let's level the playing field in the 1st District.

Passing Plan B would turn the 1st District from 17 percent American Indian to 22 percent American Indian, giving a strong American Indian candidate a modicum of a chance to some day get elected to Congress.

In either case, the 3rd District would remain Democratic, the 2nd District would remain Republican, and the 1st District, which all the of The Tribune's hullabaloo in the editorial was about, will become a swing district, where the best candidate, Democratic or Republican, would win.