Punting: Who's to say 'special master' would be any less biased on maps?

The future of the state's contested House and Senate district maps might soon be in the hands of a "special master."

That is the name being used to describe an independent third party who would be tapped to do the job of the same three-judge panel that threw out the GOP-led state legislature's maps drawn in 2011, for having been illegally racially gerrymandered.

The Republicans were forced to redraw the maps by Sept. 1 of this year, which they did, ahead of next year's elections. But those who opposed the first maps again found fault with the newly drawn lines and sued again.

The argument from the GOP attorneys is that, where racial data was determined to have influenced the initial maps, that data was not used at all in the redrawing process, and so the new maps should stand.

The opposition says the same people who drew the first maps also drew the second, so they were still aware of the racial data they say they did not use, and the new maps still heavily favor the GOP or Democratic candidates. If the new maps were to stand, the GOP would likely retain the majority it holds in both chambers.

Well, who is to say the opposition isn't simply looking for the maps to favor the Democrats? And who is to say that this as of yet unidentified "special master" is truly unbiased and would not favor one party over the other?

If the judges cannot be compelled to vote to uphold the new maps or strike them down again, it seems that passing the buck to a so-called independent third party equates to punting the football.

If there is something "out of whack" with the maps, kick them back to be redrawn. If there is no identifiable indication of illegality, then hands off.  It's that simple.

Who's ready for 2018? We sure are.

Published in Editorials on October 12, 2017 10:39 PM