Redistricting, the redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts, will be different this time, according to state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, who serves as chairman of the State Government Committee. Normally, the process is highly partisan — redrawing districts for purely political purposes.

In a front-page article in the May 15 edition of the Butler Eagle, Metcalfe said that there will be more public input and greater transparency in the redistricting process this time. Redistricing is known as gerrymandering when it is used to create convoluted district lines intended to benefit one political party by creating a district dominated by voters from one party.

Metcalfe promises that the once-every-10-years exercise linked to the national census will be better and less-partisan this time. But some observers of state government, including Tim Potts, co-founder and head of Democracy Rising PA, say it’s best to watch and wait.

While agreeing that Metcalfe and others in Harrisburg are saying all the right things about fairer redistricting, Potts says that the proof will come only when new district boundary lines are revealed. Potts notes the political parties, particulaly the Republicans who control the House, Senate and governorship, are not a disinterested party in redistricting.

Potts says an early clue will come when, or if, draft documents on redistricting are released to allow public review and comment.

Redistricting is mandated to reflect shifting population figures and to maintain roughly equal ratios of voters to lawmakers. But too often redistricting is done to create a district that is a lock for one party or the other — a safe seat.

Pennsylvania boasts a fine example of gerrymandering with the state House District 172 in eastern Pennsylvania. This district was redrawn following the 2000 census. After narrowly wining re-election in 2000, then-state Rep. John Perzel was helped by fellow Republicans in Harrisburg to avoid a repeat of his close election contest. His district was redrawn to carve out Democrats and include as many Republicans as possible. The distorted district (pictured here) is now a great — or terrible — example of redistricting abuse.

The absurd shape of the 172nd District does not reflect the state constitution requirement that districts be “compact and contiguous.” Yet, when challenged in court, the state Supreme Court decided the Constitution was vague and unenforceable when it came to redistricting. Anyone, at least anyone other than a state Supreme Court justice, can see that the changed House 172nd District is not compact or contiguous.

Gerrymandering is not unique to Pennsyvlania. It happens in most other states. A few states have reformed redistricting by placing the power to redraw political boundaries with a nonpartisan committee. Iowa is considered the least partisan.

But the way redistricting has been done in Pennsylvania, and in most other states, turns the elementary school civics lesson on its head: Instead of voters choosing politicians, gerrymandering allows politicians to choose the voters they need to get re-elected time after time.

And with lopsided voter registration in many districts, safe-seat elections produce a high degree of partisanship in the Legislature. Most politicians elected in safe, lopsided districts have no fear of losing a general election, so they also have no motivation to cooperate when it comes to working with lawmakers from across the aisle. Gridlock is the result.

Metcalfe points out that there will be public input into this year’s redistricting process. He also promises that the new districts will be “fair, legal and constitutional.”

Voters should pay attention to redistricting efforts in Harrisburg, letting state lawmakers know that they expect a fairer, less-partisan process. It should not be a political tool.