Is Kansas’ redistricting method the best? Here are pros and cons of other systems

Every ten years, as state lawmakers draw new maps for legislative and congressional districts, they open themselves up to accusations of political self-interest and gerrymandering.

But the way Kansas draws its lines isn’t the only way. Increasingly, states are adopting systems that minimize or eliminate altogether the role of elected officials.

Here are the most common approaches to redistricting:

The Legislature

How it works: This is the method most states use. Both Kansas and Missouri rely on the Legislature to draw congressional districts. In Kansas, lawmakers also draw their own legislative district maps.

Like the normal legislative process, the House and Senate must both pass the same bill. If that happens, it goes to the governor for approval or veto. If it’s vetoed, a two-thirds majority of the Legislature can override the governor’s rejection.

Advantages: Voters can hold lawmakers accountable at the ballot box for how they draw districts. The legislative model also removes any illusions that redistricting is a non-political, civic-minded exercise, offering a kind of honesty that some may appreciate.

Disadvantages: It is brazenly political, with few checks against the instinct of legislators to protect themselves and their parties. It can also be difficult to gather enough support to pass new maps because of the large number of legislators involved.

An 80-foot reproduction of Vincent van Gogh’s “Three Sunflowers in a Vase” known as the “Big Easel” stands near a water tower in Goodland, Kan., Monday, May 11, 2015. The attraction was introduced to celebrate the community’s connection to art and agriculture. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Commissions

How it works: There are a lot of variations. Missouri relies on independent citizen’s commissions to draw state House and Senate districts.

While commission members are appointed by the governor, their composition is heavily influenced by the state parties. Republicans and Democrats both nominate commission members.

Maps must be approved by 70% of members. If the commissions fail to draw districts, the Missouri Supreme Court appoints appellate judges to finish the task.

California also uses a 14-member commission system, but its members are more insulated from elected officials. Interested residents go through an application process that allows the legislature to remove some from the applicant pool before the state auditor randomly selects the first eight commissioners, who then select the final six.

Advantages: By taking the maps out of the hands of elected legislators, the commission model can potentially serve as a check against some of the most blatant gerrymandering. It can also be less chaotic because there are fewer players involved.

Disadvantages: As Missouri’s system shows, commissions can still be heavily partisan. And because the commissioners are appointed, not elected, they’re not directly accountable to voters.

Hybrid Model

How it works: Some states combine commission work with legislative approval.

In Iowa, for example, a bipartisan advisory commission guides non-partisan civil servants who draft maps the legislature either accepts or rejects. Lawmakers can modify the map in some situations.

Utah also has a similar system, but lawmakers aren’t required to vote on the maps.

Advantages: Commissions may have a better chance at producing fair maps, but lawmakers accountable to voters still give final approval. When lawmakers aren’t directly involved in drafting maps and are instead only asked to approve or reject them, it may cut down on political maneuvering over district lines.

Disadvantages: Hybrids can be complicated and have a lot of moving parts. They hinge on legislators being willing to accept the work of commissions.