Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper The Spokesman-Review

Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883
Cloudy 25° Cloudy

Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. Click here to learn more.

Opinion >  Editorial

Editorial: Supreme Court’s redistricting ruling good news for Washington

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld Arizona’s nonpartisan redistricting commission also is a victory for Washington.

Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature wasn’t happy when a voter-initiated constitutional amendment yanked the job of redrawing congressional and legislative boundaries from lawmakers and handed it to a panel balanced with members from both parties. The Legislature sued, but the court, in a 5-4 vote, said the change passed constitutional muster.

Washington also has a nonpartisan commission that was the product of decades of gerrymandering fights.

Redistricting, when new boundaries are drawn based on population changes, takes place every 10 years. It’s often used as an opportunity for the party in power to solidify that dominance.

The battles in Washington culminated in 1981, when the Republican-led Legislature drew up new congressional and legislative districts. Among other changes, the new congressional map split Spokane in two with the hope that long-serving Rep. Tom Foley, a Democrat, could be unseated. Then-Gov. John Spellman, a Republican, vetoed the new congressional boundaries, calling them too partisan.

Fed up with the long-running conflict, the Legislature launched a referendum amending the state constitution to establish the five-member nonpartisan commission that exists today. Voters approved, and it was adopted in 1983.

The two legislative party caucuses select two members each to serve on the commission. Then those four members select a fifth, a nonvoting chairman. That’s the same structure that survived the Supreme Court challenge in Arizona.

The Arizona situation is somewhat different because the process was begun by a citizens’ initiative. Nonetheless, if the ruling had gone the other way, it could have opened up Washington’s system to a possible legal challenge.

In addition, Monday’s ruling also served to bolster initiatives themselves. The majority opinion stated that while the Founding Fathers may not have imagined today’s direct democracy, it’s reasonable to believe they would accept a process that derives its power from the people.

Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman lauded the ruling for affirming the initiative process and supporting nonpartisan redistricting, which “provides an arms-length separation from redistricting and those who stand to benefit or lose as lines are redrawn.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion, beautifully summed up the argument for taking redistricting away from elected officials. She noted that Arizona voters wanted to restore “the core principle” of our republic. That is, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

That’s the choice Washington voters made more than 30 years ago.

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

Local journalism is essential.

Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds.

Active Person

Subscribe to the Coronavirus newsletter

Get the day’s latest Coronavirus news delivered to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.