The New York Times this morning has a long lead editorial on reforming what is laughingly referred to as the New York State Legislature. As the state has relentlessly declined over the last few decades both economically and politically, the Legislature has become something straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan, populated by pompous time-servers and buffoons who do as they’re told by party leaders:

. . . I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party’s call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

And as the Times makes clear the American version of the “pocket borough”– gerrymandering — is a big part of the problem:

HONEST MAPMAKING The first item on the reform list should be drawing districts honestly. A New York State legislative seat is so secure that no scandal, not even a recent conviction, can reliably defeat an incumbent. The prime reason is that legislators create their own districts. Every 10 years, each legislator with any power tells the mapmakers: Put my pal’s house in my district and my enemy’s house out. A few of these districts look like something wiggling under a microscope, but they keep their hosts in office until death, retirement or, with increasing frequency these days, time spent in jail.

The Legislature and Gov. David Paterson should immediately agree to create a nonpartisan commission like the one in Iowa that draws districts fairly and presents the map for a yes or no vote. (A no vote means the commission, not the legislators, re-draws the maps.)

Gerrymandering dates back to the earliest days of the country (Patrick Henry and his allies who dominated the Virginia legislature, tried to use gerrymandering to keep James Madison out of the House of Representatives in 1789). In 1811, the Massachusetts legislature drew up weirdly-shaped districts that favored — surprise! — incumbents. A famous cartoon in the Boston Gazette made one of these districts into a monster with wings and beak. Gilbert Stuart — a better painter than biologist — said it looked like a salamander. The editor said “Better say gerrymander” after Governor Elbridge Gerry and the word stuck.

Computers have turned gerrymandering into a fine art and the effect has been deeply pernicious. Gerrymandering effectively disenfranchises millions of Americans. It makes primary elections more important than general elections. That, in turn, empties out the center from which this country has always been governed, as primary electorates tend to be dominated by the left and the right. That makes politics ever more partisan, bitter, and vindictive. Legislators entrenched by gerrymandering easily become both corrupt and indifferent to public opinion, and thus much more willing to do the bidding of special interests. Gerrymandering is also one of the main reasons the public favors so strongly what politicians hate so much: term limits.

It has taken the Times a long time to editorialize against gerrymandering, but better late than  never. Congress has the power (Article I, Section 4) to require fair districting and, indeed, did require it until the 1920’s. It will take tremendous political pressure to get it to do so again, however.

I hope that the Times’ call to end gerrymandering in New York State (and thus, by implication, everywhere) marks a shift in political sentiment on the issue among liberals. Gerrymandering is a clear and present danger to American democracy and its end would do more to restore political health to this country than any other single reform. And it wouldn’t even cost any money.