Letter to the editor: Gerrymandering & democracy | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Gerrymandering & democracy

Thank you for the editorial ”Gerrymandering doesn’t represent us.”Gerrymandering can be a complicated subject, but you focused on the essence of the problem with the sentence, “Representative democracy doesn’t work if it’s not representative.”

This assessment sums up the reason our state and federal governments are dysfunctional. If we can’t select the best people to address our concerns and can’t vote them out if they don’t, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get gridlock rather than effective problem solving.

Many states have proven that independent citizens commissions do a better job in drawing districts because citizens are motivated to provide true representation. Also, they are eager for transparency and input from their fellow citizens.

I advocate support of Senate Bill 22 with amendments, which has been passed out of committee and would establish a citizens commission. However, in its current form, the legislators would pick the commission members. This is not an independent commission. House Bills 22 and 23 are languishing in the House, and they would create an independent citizens commission.

I was a plaintiff in the 2017 lawsuit in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the congressional district map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered. That decision resulted in a fair map, but with the 2020 census, new districts will again be drawn by officeholders unless the process is changed.

To restore true representation to our democracy, citizens have to demand this change. The legislators have had centuries to improve redistricting fairness, and they have failed. It’s time to give citizens a chance!

Kitsy McNulty

Shadyside

The writer is Pittsburgh coordinator for Fair Districts PA (fairdistrictspa.com).


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.