Political Careers Should be Last Consideration

With the legislators about to meet in special session to establish districts, I wrote this letter to those legislators whose addresses I have:

As much as we do not like gerrymandering -- creating arms instead of enclosing the district in a compact area -- it is a worse thing to draw the lines with political careers in mind. Politics should be the last consideration. We do not elect people to serve themselves, to further their own interests, but we elect them to serve us, the people. Here's hoping that when the special session opens this coming week, you will reject the notion of making any district more electable for any individual, or more Republican or Democratic just so that party can elect more of its candidates.
Please set aside your own desires, your own wants. Please do not consider helping your friends on the Hill by making it easier for any of them. The politican may be out of office in two years (or less), but the boundaries will remain for 10 years. Please, instead of considering the benefits you can achieve for any political party, consider how you can help the people. Instead of trying to silence any group of people, by watering down their power by placing them in districts where they will be the minority, please look to grant as many people a voice as possible. Certain groups -- whether we speak of the Democratic Party or rural interests or whoever -- represent the majority in their areas. Give them their own district, then. Give them a voice, the opportunity to elect their own person, instead of silencing their voice by placing them in a district that has more voters who believe differently than they do.

We often say, "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight for your right to say it." Here is the moment when you can prove you meant that, if you should ever have said it.

The pizza approach might have reasonably clean boundaries, but its strength is its weakness. I have heard it has gained favor for mixing urban and rural, thus forcing the elected official to represent both interests. But, if it results in all the representatives being from the cities -- none from the rural areas -- are you really ensuring representation of both? You are not. You are, to a degree, disenfranchising your rural voters.

Rural areas by definition are less populated. They are going to have a minority representation regardless. Even if we could take the most rural parts of our state and round them together in a single district, that would give them but one representative. The urban areas would have the other three. Why make it any harder on them by slicing them in with urban areas so they end up with no elected official of their own at all?

I'm hoping you do not do that to our rural areas. Might gives the power to do wrong, but it does not give the right.