Iowa is one state that gets redistricting right

Twenty-some years ago, a Congressional delegation came to our embassy in Stockholm, and one of the representatives was the moderate Republican from Iowa Jim Leach.

It was the August recess, but Leach was anxious to get home to Iowa to campaign for re-election. I was surprised by his nervousness. Leach, first elected to the House in 1976 and widely respected, had often won his races by 30 percentage points.

Part of his concern was that Iowa had just lost a congressional seat in the wake of the 2000 census and he was moving from the First District to a new Second District.

Those district lines had not been drawn by a partisan legislature, but by the independent and nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, which was created in 1980. No one was going to draw boundaries that would assure him reelection.

Leach survived by six points, but, four years later, he would lose in a shocking upset because of Iowans’ unhappiness with President Bush’s war in Iraq, ending Leach’s 30-year career.

If one looks at today’s congressional map of Iowa — down to four seats — one is struck by its orderliness. Not one county is divided. The State House and Senate approved that map by votes of 98-2 and 48-1 respectively. It was an up-or-down vote — no amendments were allowed.

The criteria in Iowa are straightforward, beginning with population, attempting to have equal numbers of voters in each of the districts, but Iowa notes that equality of numbers does not guarantee that there will not be grounds for a court challenge. Thus, the LSA emphasizes respect for political subdivisions, contiguousness, and compactness in drawing the lines.

What are not allowed are districts that would favor one party over another, or any person or group, or augmenting or diluting the voting strength of any minority group. Lines shall not be drawn to protect incumbents.

This is why Iowa has long been the poster child for the way congressional districts should be drawn as opposed to the orgy of gerrymandering that sophisticated software programs and vast troves of information about voters and their preferences have made possible.

These days, one almost expects lines drawn down the middle of a house with the Republican husband and Democratic wife voting in different districts.

Michael Barone wrote a column in these pages a few days ago arguing that the current system, as envisioned by our founders, with the emphasis on population equality works well and has withstood the test of time. It was kind of a “look over there” argument that ignored the real issue we are facing.

Voters should choose politicians, not the other way around. That is what is at issue in the debate over gerrymandering.

Here in Illinois, which was recently singled out by the Washington Post as one of the worst offenders when it comes to bizarrely partisan congressional districts, there is a bipartisan effort afoot to redraw state legislative boundaries using a model similar to Iowa’s. They should not stop there. They should extend their effort to the congressional map as well, especially since a new census in five years will probably reduce the size of Illinois’ congressional delegation again requiring a new map.

It is hard to imagine either party disarming unilaterally, but voters need to reward those politicians who support nonpartisan commissions that will draw congressional lines fairly and will create an increased number of competitive races.

To continue down the path that Texas has chosen in redrawing districts mid-cycle and that California seems prepared to follow is to allow a threat to our democracy to fester and grow. Iowa shows us a better way

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86. His book “American Dreams: The Story of the Cyprus Fulbright Commission” is available from Amazon.com.