Court cracks redistricting racket: Our view

In 2001, as the California Legislature prepared to draw new congressional districts, 30 Democratic members of Congress took matters into their own hands. They hired consultants to draw them safe districts, and then persuaded the legislature to accept the districts they presented. As one not-very-discrete congressman said of the money he spent on consultants: "Twenty thousand dollars is nothing to keep your seat."

To thwart this kind of thinking — and to help ensure that districts lines are fair, sensible and relatively compact — voters in California approved a measure in 2010 creating an independent commission to draw all state and federal political boundaries. The move borrowed from similar initiatives passed by voters in Arizona, Washington and several smaller states.

And on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court, much to the surprise of many who had seen the hostile questioning during oral arguments, upheld this approach to drawing congressional and legislative districts.

In its 5-4 ruling in Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court concluded that the voters of a state can control the process, though the U.S. Constitution says the times, places and manners of elections shall be prescribed by state legislatures.

Monday's ruling essentially found that by legislature, the Founding Fathers actually meant the legislativeprocess, and that in states with ballot initiatives, the process is shared by the legislature and the voters.

In an era of political gridlock and hyperpartisanship, it is hard to overstate how positive a development this is. Independent commissions are one of the best ways to thwart the rampant gerrymandering that contributes to political polarization.

The commissions are not perfect. They are sometimes plagued by infighting. And lawmakers are becoming adept at finding people to present their case during public hearings, posing as ordinary citizens.

Even so, commissions generally produce districts that are more compact, more competitive and more reflective of the political views of the voters. The congressional districts in California and Washington (where the state governments are controlled by Democrats) and Arizona (where the government is in Republican hands) look fairly sensible with one quick glance at the map.

In contrast, the political maps in states such as Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Maryland (where a single party controls government and the redistricting process) look like abstract expressionist paintings. Their lines are gerrymandered to protect incumbents and to inflate the number of office holders from the party drawing the lines.

Gerrymandering is a key reason why Democrats held a majority in the House of Representatives for 40 years ending in 1994, and why Republicans have a large House majority now despite the fact that the aggregate vote has been evenly split in recent elections. It is not to blame for all of the dysfunction in Congress, but it is responsible for some of it.

For these reasons, states that do not have independent commissions should consider getting them. The Supreme Court has given a green light to those states where legislating is done in part through ballot initiatives.

By creating independent commissions, voters will recapture more control over the electoral process. The voters should select their office holders, rather than allowing office holders to select their voters.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.