Independent Redistricting (and Ethics) Works

In ethics, there are two basic approaches: (1) an ends-based approach, also referred to as utilitarian or consequentialist; and (2) a means-based approach, also referred to as rules-based or deontological. Government officials, and most people when speaking about government, generally use the former, while government ethics uses the latter. This causes a lot of problems.

Therefore, it is very heartening to see an academic taking a critical look at ends-based approaches to solving a governmental problem. The academic is Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos (U. of Chicago Law School), the problem is redistricting, and the name of his draft paper is "The Consequences of Consequentialist Criteria."

Stephanopoulos argues that the two approaches to redistricting that have been popular recently are consequentialist. He calls the first the "partisan fairness approach." It requires that redistricting plans treat the major parties symmetrically in terms of the conversion of votes to seats. The "competitiveness approach," requires that districts be as electorally competitive as practicable.

His research shows that neither of these approaches works, using their own criteria. That is, "partisan fairness requirements have not made district plans more symmetric in their treatment of the major parties. Nor have competitiveness requirements made elections more competitive."

However, he finds that a third, non-consequentialist approach – the neutral redistricting commission or a court – has been successful in terms of both partisan fairness and making elections more competitive. In other words, focusing on means and process rather than results can sometimes get better results. His principal example is South Australia's independent redistricting commission.

Stephanopoulos's decision to analyze a non-consequentialist approach in terms of its consequences shows how hard it is justify such approaches. I prefer the ethics approach, which is how I have been looking at local redistricting since my first blog post on the topic in 2008. When elected officials, or those they appoint, either do redistricting themselves or choose the body that makes the determinations, they create an appearance that they are looking out for their own interests rather than the best interests of the public. That is why, even if the results were no different, it is better to have a neutral redistricting commission, selected by non-officials. Better results is icing on the cake (without the calories or the cholesterol).

Redistricting may be on the outskirts of government ethics. But the same arguments can be made for a neutral, independent ethics commission, completely outside the control of officials under its jurisdiction.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---