Spark to ignite the powder keg?

The past few months I have been obsessed with Idaho's redistricting process. I've drawn my own legislative districts for the state based on the testimony I watched first hand and online, as well as from my years gallivanting across this state. I've played with the possibility of what if Idaho was to get another US Representative. I've also seen the terrible maps proposed by the Republican half of the first Redistricting Commission, listened to George Moses drone about keeping counties whole, and looked over other amateurs’ maps. I've also read Grant Loebs argument that by splitting counties, the people of that county suddenly lose their voice in the legislature.

The problem with this logic of course being the assumption that all residents of a county share similar values and needs. You don't have to look hard at all to realize the flaws in that line of thought. Coeur d'Alene is not the same as Post Falls, and has even less in common with Rathdrum or Hayden Lake. The similarities between the needs between those in rural areas and urban or suburban communities are greatly different. As a result they should be represented by legislators who can represent their communities, rather than struggling to represent rival groups. Loebs' argument that "counties are forever" also doesn't hold water. County lines can be changed at any time by the legislature. And legislatures do not affect county laws or development, they affect the entire state.

When the Idaho Supreme Court found 4-1 in favor of Loebs the other day I was a little surprised. While keeping counties whole is a part of the Idaho Constitution, another part states that the Redistricting Commission CAN split counties when it is justifiable and agreed upon by at least five of the six commissioners. The plan the commission adopted was created unanimously. It was also the best map any officials had put forth.

Unfortunately the justices of the court felt that particular portion of the constitution (written to allow leniency for commissioners to create districts that truly allow for representative government) was not as important as keeping imaginary county "communities" together. Justice Jim Jones did however write a 14 page dissent to the majority of the court that I found to be exactly the way redistricting should be.

After all this hoopla over drawing legislative districts it's become clear to me that the Idaho Constitution as it pertains to redistricting needs a severe reworking. The idea is solid, a bi-partisan citizen commission that requires a simple majority. However this obsession amongst politicians and others over keeping as many counties whole as possible is the wrong direction to take. Until equal priority is given to keeping communities of interest whole while splitting the fewest number of counties possible, our state will not have legislators who represent likeminded districts, but rather districts with numerous factions vying for control of their representatives’ ear.